Stephen Ladyman: Once again, I can certainly understand the need for a degree of urgency in this matter, but my hon. Friend has already been engaged in detailed discussions with me about the future of the M6, which is also a matter of great concern to him, so he will understand that there is also a lot of sensitivity about that. I cannot make assumptions about the design of the M6 until we have finished our consultation, so we cannot make assumptions about the design of the junction until we have made that decision. So I will offer urgency proportionate to the complexity of the decisions that must be taken.

Daniel Kawczynski: I should like to echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) about the importance of this road. As I have mentioned on many occasions, Shrewsbury is the only county town without a direct rail link to London.

Andrew Turner: Oh no it is not.

Derek Twigg: Clearly we need to have fares that are competitive. Unregulated fares need to compete with the fares of airlines and buses and the cost of using a car. However, regulated fares are lower in real terms than they were in 1995. There is a balance to be struck between what the taxpayer and the fare payer pay. As my hon. Friend says, there are quite a number of good deals on lower fares that people can take. It is important that they are publicised and that people are aware that they are available.

Derek Twigg: Obviously I will have a look at that and get in touch with the operator. We have announced the £370 million access for all fund to make access to the railway better for disabled people and those with prams. We will make an announcement in the near future about the stations that will be part of the first stage of the programme.

Alistair Darling: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. We are about to receive from different parts of the country their views on priorities for transport. There will undoubtedly be roads that affect different regions, in which case the Department will have to reach a view. The Government have made additional money available for several projects in Milton Keynes. On public transport, we made about £24 million available for rebuilding the station, which will hopefully help as well. I am aware of the point that he makes about roads. There are a lot of pressures on the road budget, but there are cases in which we will have to find out what we can do to enable traffic to flow better.

Kerry McCarthy: I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to consider road pricing as a way of tackling the problems of congestion on our roads, rather than building more roads. I also welcome last year's decision to include Bristol in one of the feasibility studies, but does he accept that our efforts to get motorists out of their cars and on to public transport will fail in the face of the situation in my constituency, where First Group, which runs the buses, has increased fares three times in the past year, most recently by up to 22 per cent.? Will he respond to that?

Alistair Darling: When tackling problems of congestion in Bristol or any other city it is important to achieve the right mix of adequate public transport, including affordable bus services, and appropriate measures to restrict traffic growth. That is especially important in a city such as Bristol, which I visited just before Christmas and which is already quite severely congested. I welcome my hon. Friend's remark about road pricing. I agree that we need a sensible building programme—additional capacity is needed in some places—but we must be mindful of our environmental obligations. The key is to balance the two, which is not always easy, but I believe that it can be done.

Tony Baldry: Another way to reduce pressure on the roads budget and on the roads is to invest more in railways. One way to reduce pressure on Milton Keynes would be to invest in the east-west rail link, which will eventually link Southampton and Felixstowe via Oxford, Bicester and Milton Keynes. The project has the comprehensive support of every local authority along the route and it has been the subject of more surveys and project reports than any other scheme that I can think of; all it requires is a Government funding commitment. It seems strange that Milton Keynes is expanding purely on the basis of increased road use. Can we have some sustainable communities and investment in the railways, especially the east-west rail link?

Alistair Darling: I am glad that across the board the Conservative party is repenting the sins of the past. I recall that the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the last Conservative Government, when Government spending on rail fell dramatically until 1996. One reason why we have problems in some parts of the railways is that, as with roads, we did not spend money when we should have.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there have been a number of studies in respect of the east-west rail link, but even though we have doubled spending on railways since 1997, I am not convinced that that project is the right place to put our money. I believe that other areas where we need to increase capacity take priority over that scheme. If he and his colleagues are saying that we need to spend more on transport, they are absolutely right, and if they have changed their mind about the position that they have taken in the past few elections, that is very good as well.

Alistair Darling: In relation to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have been very careful in the past four years not to lay all the problems of underfunding in transport on the Conservative Government. [Interruption.] True, they were in power for 18 years and one might have thought that something would be done during that period, but unfortunately the underinvestment goes back through successive Governments right back to the 1960s. The point that I was making to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was that in 1992, Government support for the railways was about £2 billion, but by 1995–96 it had plummeted to £431 million. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the years that followed there were severe difficulties in relation to the railway because of a backlog of maintenance and investment. Money is essential, not just on the railways but elsewhere.
	In relation to the 10-year plan, the Government set out a spending programme for 10 years—one that was renewed and increased in the spending review in 2004. There is a key question that the hon. Gentleman must consider—I do not expect him to answer it today, but at some point he will have to tell us. It is all very well to say that his approach is changing and that he now understands that investment is necessary, but is he able to come up with the money to do so? He must know that his leader is committed to spending less on public expenditure than we are.

Chris Grayling: So let us look at the Government's real commitments on spending. For example, in the 10-year plan and in many of the things that the Secretary of State has said since, he has talked about solving the congestion problems on our roads or at least contributing to solving those problems, by getting freight off the roads and on to the railways. Can he explain to the House why his Department has cut the funding for rail freight by nearly half in the past three years?

Alistair Darling: Rail freight has gone up 36 per cent. over the past few years. I have said before in the House on many occasions that I do not believe that the way to encourage freight is to continually subsidise it. We want to encourage the carriage of freight that is a commercial proposition. I am surprised that a Conservative Government—Conservative Opposition, rather—[Interruption.] It is worth reminding people of the threat that there might be a Conservative Government one day. We know what happened when there was a Conservative Government—investment in roads and in railways was cut, and we know the consequences of that. As the hon. Gentleman is in such a combative mood, can he tell me what the Tories' policy is on the railways? His leader said in December:
	"Britain now needs a concerted programme of road building",
	yet the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said that
	"there must be an assumption against road building".
	What is the Tory party policy on it?

Stephen Ladyman: First, I am happy to congratulate Honda on the success of the Civic, and my hon. Friend's constituents on their work in producing it. Such improvements have to some extent come about because of changes that have been made, such as the Euro NCAP test. It is worth noting that that has its 10th anniversary this year, and the standard of safety of vehicles has gone from about two stars on average when it first came in to about four or five stars. The Honda Civic is a contributor to that.
	On mobile phones, when the Road Safety Bill returns to the House shortly, my hon. Friend will see that we propose to legislate to make it an endorsable offence to use a mobile phone while driving. People will get not only an increased fine, but three points on their licence. It is beyond me why people continue to use a mobile phone while driving, when hands-free sets are so cheap. In addition, my hon. Friend will find that a new offence is introduced in the Road Safety Bill, which makes being the owner of an uninsured car an offence, if the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has not been notified that it is off the road. That, alongside efforts to allow enforcement from the record, will mean that we can clamp down hard on uninsured driving. I hope to see some uninsured cars going straight into the crusher to teach people a lesson.

Jim Cunningham: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is aware that a passenger travelling from Coventry to London will be expected to pay between £7 and £10 on a standard journey for the privilege, while the rail companies have had to cancel trains or they have had to endure overcrowded trains. Can he have a word with the rail companies about that?

Jim Murphy: The UK Government are involved in the sixth presidency initiative, which, as the name suggests, involves six consecutive presidents of the EU in a sustained effort to reduce bureaucracy and the number of directives coming from Europe. We are heartened by the Commission's efforts in recent months. During our presidency, it announced that it would withdraw a third of all legislative proposals and last October, it announced ambitious simplification plans, involving the removal of 90 proposals. We have a lot more work to do and this year, it is absolutely crucial that both Europe and the UK deliver on the better regulation agenda that the business community supports so strongly.

Jim Murphy: The recently published transformational government IT strategy set out a concerted approach to managing IT procurement across government. Individual Departments are of course responsible for procurement. If software is not fit for purpose, they may seek compensation on the basis of the contract that they have negotiated.

David Heath: Returning to EDS, it is easy to blame IT contractors when, in fact, the commissioning department is at fault. Will the Minister confirm that the compressed time scale for introduction was set despite warnings from the supplier of a last-minute problem? Indeed, on 4 April 2003—the last day before the introduction of tax credits—the Government demanded a certificate of fitness for purpose, in anticipation of problems. Does not the eventual settlement contain what is described as a "significant confidentiality requirement" specifically to avoid embarrassment? Is it clear that that confidentiality requirement will not in any way inhibit proper investigation by the National Audit Office?

David Laws: I beg to move,
	That this House agrees with the Prime Minster that the Child Support Agency has lost the confidence of the public, that its basic structural problems remain and that it is not properly suited to carry out its task.
	I am pleased that we have this opportunity today to debate the future of the Child Support Agency—and to do so before the long-awaited and, frankly, long-delayed statement that we have been expecting for some months from the Department for Work and Pensions.
	All hon. Members have received many representations from constituents, usually over a period of years, about the ineffectiveness of the CSA. The concern that many of us have is that many of our constituents have now given up hope that the problems with the CSA will ever be resolved. We hope very much that when Ministers "come forward shortly", in the words of the Minister, with proposals, they will be radical and will go to the heart of the problems of the CSA. I hope that by having this debate today there will be an opportunity for Ministers to reflect on comments from both sides of the House and from Members with considerable expertise. I hope that it will not be too late to influence the shape and detail of the statement that is brought forward in a few days or weeks.
	There is no doubt about the chaotic and crisis-type situation that the CSA has been in since 1993 when it was founded by a Conservative Government. I say that now to save the Minister making that point later on, because we need to focus on what we can do to tackle the problems of the CSA in the future. Clearly, it is common ground across the House that there is a major challenge to be addressed.
	As far back as 1998, the Prime Minister acknowledged that the CSA had lost the confidence of the public and described it as "a mess" in need of "urgent reform". Yet seven years on, we still seem to have failed to address the fundamental problems that have been experienced from the founding of the agency until 1998 when the Prime Minister made that statement.
	As has been drawn to the attention of hon. Members on the Order Paper today, we have the advantage of the Select Committee report on the subject, a very critical report from a year ago in which the Committee described the CSA as a "failing organisation" that is in crisis. In its indictment, the Committee concluded that it was difficult to exaggerate the agency's already low reputation with the public and the Committee recommended that consideration be given to the option of winding up the CSA and plans made for an alternative set of policies.
	We know that the Prime Minister very much shares those concerns because he said so in the Chamber on 16 November last year. He said:
	"I make no defence of the current situation. . . . The truth is that the agency is not properly suited to carry out that task."—[Official Report, 16 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 964.]

David Laws: I shall give way in a moment, but I want to make a further point about one of the major problems with which the CSA is struggling—the backlog that has built up over a long period due to the ineffectiveness of the mechanism for considering assessments. Despite the move to the new system of child support maintenance a few years ago, the agency has a backlog of 333,000 cases—a third of a million—and of those, 73,000 are more than two and a half years old. That is wholly unacceptable, as is the fact that a third of the new scheme cases that have not yet been processed have experienced waiting times of 448 days. When we consider that when the new scheme was introduced the Government were talking about waiting times of six weeks—yet it is now six months—we realise what an enormous problem the CSA is experiencing.

Mark Francois: I am no defender of the CSA, but the hon. Gentleman's proposed solution is to give the problem to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, despite the fact that it experienced a fiasco in its own right in the maladministration of tax credits—a problem that continues ad nauseam. Given that the hon. Gentleman, like me, has often been critical of the HMRC and the Treasury because of that maladministration, how can it make sense to give the HMRC this problem when it cannot even deal with its own fiasco?

David Laws: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
	When we look at the statistics, we discover that in March 2004, the CSA had about 10,800 staff, and that by the time the Government's response to the report came out, the number had fallen by about 1,000 to 9,784. We now discover that the figure will be even lower this March—down to 9,400—and the Minister owes us an explanation as to why it has been right to cut staff numbers by one in eight at an agency that is failing some of the poorest people in the Britain and why it appears from those figures that, frankly, the Government have gone back on the clear undertakings that they made to the House about the CSA's staffing.

James Plaskitt: No; let me make some progress.
	The third part of the hon. Gentleman's pitch concerned his party's document, which sets out what he thinks that his party could do with the agency. The document seems to be highly secret, because it is not in the Library, and we cannot even obtain it from the Liberal Democrats press office.
	Notwithstanding those matters, I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for Yeovil for giving the House the opportunity this afternoon to discuss a range of child support issues. I entirely understand his concern and that of all other hon. Members about the performance of the Child Support Agency, which is clearly unacceptable. Since the agency was set up nearly 13 years ago, it has accumulated more than £3 billion in debt. It has more than 300,000 cases awaiting an initial maintenance assessment, and 30 per cent. of non-resident parents who are assessed to pay maintenance fail to do so. That situation cannot be allowed to persist. Although the problems facing the CSA are huge, we should not forget that the primary responsibility for non-resident parents to contribute to the upbringing of their children lies with the parents themselves.
	I want to describe the circumstances in which staff in the CSA are expected to operate. Many clients come to the agency when their relationship has broken down, when they have lost their job or even when private maintenance arrangements have failed. It will never be easy for the state to be involved in the difficult and emotional circumstances that often surround parents when child support becomes an issue. The circumstances are often extremely fraught, and Government intervention in any one of relationships, money or caring for children may inflame parents who are already in a tense situation, but we expect staff in the agency who sort out child support maintenance to become involved in a mixture of all three issues.

Anne Main: In my constituency—I am sure that this is true of many other hon. Members' constituencies, too—one unfortunate absent parent, as he is deemed, has been paying under the old system since 2003, which has caused him hardship. When I wrote to the Minister about the case, he referred me to a parliamentary answer:
	"We will only make a decision on the transfer of old scheme cases once we are confident that the system and business processes are robust."[Official Report, 20 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 705W.]
	Which systems and business processes require improvement and what is the time scale? Can the Minister provide any hope for people such as my constituent, who is waiting for those business processes and who is desperate to leave the old system?

James Plaskitt: We are all able to cite examples from our constituency case files—I can do that just as well as any other Member. I completely understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The situation is symptomatic of performance issues inside the agency that are not acceptable and clearly must improve. He cites one form of the problem—correspondence that purports to do have done something but has not, which means that the case has subsequently to be reopened. That creates one of the problems that the recovery scheme for the agency must address.

James Plaskitt: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and pertinent point. I, too, have seen flow charts that the agency has produced showing the extraordinary interlinking between different cases. I take on board my hon. Friend's point about separating out such cases. Cases in which the administration is extremely faulty and which come to us as constituency MPs often tend to be those that relate to very complex arrangements. It is in the nature of things that we do not get to see the relatively straightforward cases that the CSA handles, which are quickly processed and stay in payment without much problem for the lifetime of the maintenance agreement. However, we should bear the complex cases in mind when we are contemplating how to deal with the agency and the problems that arise, of which there are far too many in such cases. My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

James Plaskitt: I accept that point. The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct to say that our CSA comes out poorly in international comparisons of the cost per unit collected. That is precisely why we are now addressing some of the fundamental issues in the agency. We have been looking carefully at the systems that operate in other countries and feeding our findings into our recent root-and-branch review of the agency's operations.
	It is not my intention to downplay or minimise the problems in the agency. As many hon. Members will know, I have been a regular critic of it myself. In this debate, however, it is important that we try to maintain an overall perspective of the situation. Despite all the well documented problems, there are nevertheless signs of improvement in the agency's performance. Last year, it collected more than £600 million from non-resident parents, and nearly 400,000 parents with care received maintenance, either via the agency, or arranged by the agency but paid directly. This equates to 529,000 children who now have maintenance as a result of the agency's intervention, and since its inception, the agency has collected £4.5 billion of maintenance payments.
	Over the last calendar year, 2005, case and cash compliance, accuracy, enforcement and the telephony improved. Between January and September, the number of outstanding, uncleared potential applications across both schemes fell by 8 per cent. from 362,000 to 333,000. That is still far too high, but from the trend over the year we begin to see a reduction in that number. In September, the last month for which we have accurate figures, 25 per cent. of new cases coming to the agency were cleared in less than six weeks, although the average clearance time—this is not acceptable—was 26 weeks.

Tony Baldry: I am sure the Minister fairly accepts that the cases that tend to come to us are the difficult ones, but one thing that seems to be grossly unfair is the fact that, even in those cases where the ombudsman accepts that there has been maladministration or a claimant has been seriously let down—the worst of the worst—there seems to be no process of compensation. People can lose out really badly, and neither the parliamentary commissioner nor the independent case reviewer seem to be in any position to award decent compensation. This may involve minimal stuff such as inconvenience, but there seems to be no provision in the system for compensation to be made for losses incurred.

Rosie Cooper: Like many other hon. Members, I have constituents and their children who are living in unnecessary poverty and who rely on the CSA to collect the arrears. I am interested in what the Minister has just said because I am dealing with what is patently a straightforward case, but the father is a barrister who is leading the CSA a merry dance, thwarting at every opportunity its right to collect that money. If non-paying parents, especially those who know the law, are using the system and feel that nothing will be done to enforce their responsibility towards their children, that just adds to the CSA's difficulties. What more can be done to encourage the CSA to take action against those who are wilfully doing that and what can the courts do to help?

James Plaskitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. She is right to say that there are some non-resident parents who will try to play the system for all it is worth and exploit every available opportunity. Many of us have come across such instances at our advice surgeries.
	The agency is now taking much more action on enforcement. I have given my hon. Friend the figures on the sharp increase in the number of orders placed before the court, but may I also point out the effectiveness of the liability orders? Let us consider the case of a non-resident parent who was self-employed—often the category who are effective at playing the system—and whose debts, accumulated over four years, had grown to nearly £9,000. When the agency went to the court to take a liability order, that was enough to make that non-resident parent pay up in full. We have plenty of examples of how stepping up action on the liability orders, as we are doing, has the desired effect on some of those non-resident parents who have been trying to duck the system, in some cases for quite a long time.

Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman says that Ministers have received that damning document from the new chief executive. Will we be able to see that document before the Government present the House with their proposals for reform, or will access be restricted, as with the Liberal Democrats' reform programme?

Michael Weir: My experience of enforcement suggests that the figures might be misleading. In many cases the enforcement procedure starts and the parent subject to the procedure makes a couple of payments and then stops. There seems to be a huge delay in restarting the enforcement procedure, so that the parent who should be receiving the money gets no benefit from it.

John MacDougall: Does the hon. Lady agree that the CSA's goals were not clear when it was set up and that there was confusion about who should be targeted? In my constituency, the people who do not get caught are those who are on the move all the time. Agency staff try to build a case to catch a person, only to find that that person has moved on. They have to start all over again, and that is very frustrating. One case in my area has lasted four years. That is not the norm, but when we talk about improvements we must remember where we started from. The Government have made significant improvements in the CSA, but the trouble is that such a poor start was made that they are not catching up with the problems.

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend may be about to deal with the question of enforcement, which is the key to improving the CSA's performance. Absent parents who refuse to pay often go underground and become part of the black economy. The HMRC is unlikely to be the solution to that problem, as it is unlikely to capture such people anyway.
	I do not want to make a speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but a case in my constituency has gone on for six years. The sum involved is £18,000 and the person who should pay it was the cheque writer in the company for which he worked. He refused to authorise the payments, turned self-employed and then went into the black economy. Many hon. Members will be aware of similar stories. My argument is that the Minister must deal with improving the CSA's powers of enforcement.

Anne McIntosh: There is another approach that I shall come to in a moment, if I may test the hon. Gentleman's patience.
	The Minister was right to say that the agency had had more than just teething problems with the computer system. It was delivered late, some 18 months after the original date. It continues to fail families and, as recently as January 2005, 250,000 cases were stuck in the system. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman said that the figure was now 300,000. The computer system was described by the Work and Pensions Committee as "defective" and the then Committee Chairman said that such systems
	"are an appalling waste of public money and cause distress to thousands of people".
	I agree with the Minister that we are where we are, and we must now move forward. In addition to the problems caused by the computer system are those caused by migration. Indeed, the Committee's report asked the Minister to put a date on migration, but I think that we are still waiting. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), can give us a date when she winds up. The transfer of customers from the old to the present computer base is also causing delay and concern. Figures from the CSA September quarterly statistics show that the current caseload is enormous—I will not even mention the number—and that 65 per cent. of cases are in the old scheme, with 35 per cent. in the new scheme, while 306,000, or 21 per cent., have not yet even progressed to the point of calculation and assessment; and that 261,000 applications in the new scheme have not been cleared.

James McGovern: I, too, am intrigued by the old system versus the new one. I have many constituents sitting impatiently in the old system waiting to go over to the new one. Does the hon. Lady agree that once the new system is up and running it will ease the burden and that far fewer cases will go through the clerical route? That was originally intended to be the fallback position, but has become the norm. Pressure on the system would be eased, as would pressure on the hard-pressed staff about which we have heard.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, and I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to respond to it.
	The Minister told us about the catalogue of missed targets. The Select Committee report showed that not one of the targets had been reached. Paragraph 31 stated:
	"The Committee believes that the failure to achieve any of the Ministerial targets for the new scheme is totally unacceptable and in the opinions expressed forcefully by One Parent Families represents nothing less than a severe breach of trust."
	The Committee related that failure to the increasing incidence of complaints to the independent case examiner.
	As I said, we do not expect that the solution will be easy or that there can be a quick fix, but we are not convinced that the Inland Revenue is the answer. Its computer system shares many of the faults and defects of the CSA system and the Revenue has the disadvantage of not knowing a person's total income until the year end.
	The Conservatives want to help parents with care and to set people free, thereby saving money for the benefits system, and thus the state, while making parents live up to their responsibilities. Obviously, two parents are always better than one, but the CSA has to deal with the situation to the best of its ability and I am sure that the House agrees that the system should be improved. The question is what those improvements should be, and I should like to go through them.
	The case for the CSA was agreed with all-party support when it was set up in 1993. Wherever possible, children should be supported financially by both parents, rather than by the taxpayer, and the agency should play a key role in providing financial support to enable lone parents to get out of the benefit trap and into work.
	I should like to place on record the reason why we believe that the Liberal Democrat policy, in so far as it was set out—

Anne McIntosh: We will not flinch from making difficult choices. When I read last year's excellent Work and Pensions Committee report, I was struck, as the Minister set out, that we are asking agency staff and officers to work in difficult conditions. Two ladies from the CSA who came along to my surgery were virtually threatened by an otherwise mild-mannered gentleman—he was mild mannered when he came into the surgery, but certainly not when he went out. Training, monitoring and supervision are of key importance.

Frank Field: I, like other hon. Members, congratulate the Liberal Democrats on choosing for today's debate a subject that affects too many of our constituents, who will be following the debate with considerable interest.
	It was a pleasure to sit on the Government Benches listening to the Minister treat the House of Commons as though it is composed of grown-ups rather than children. His speech was serious and considered.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh); this is the first time that I have heard her open a debate for the official Opposition and I am a great admirer of her skills. I fear, however, that she wrote her speech before she had heard how careful the Minister was in what he said and did not say. The way in which she committed the Conservative party to the Child Support Agency reminds me of a comment made by David Steel, now Lord Steel, when a prominent Liberal supporter left the Liberals to join another party: he said that he thought it was the first time in history that a rat had a joined a sinking ship. That may well be the position in which the Conservatives find themselves when they read the Minister's speech carefully.
	Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the staff of the CSA. I have not seen the figures that the Minister has showing an increase, and a planned increase, in the number of staff working for the CSA, but I was going to suggest a reason why their number was falling. When the agency was created, people from the private sector and the public sector joined it with huge enthusiasm because they thought it had a desirable objective—to ensure that people pay maintenance when maintenance is due—and that they would get considerable job satisfaction from working for it. Given that we have provided them with a broken-backed IT system, it is hugely to their credit that so many of them continue to try to provide a first-class service and turn up each day to do probably the most stressful job in the public sector.
	I was heartened by the Minister's speech. The Government now have the chief executive's report, although the Minister has wisely decided not to let us see it before the Government have come up with their proposals. I would be very surprised if the chief executive did not accept that his agency has deep-seated problems, which the Minister set out in a serious way, and if he did not accompany his acceptance of that analysis with a request for more money. I hope that the Government do not follow the line that the Opposition have advocated. I hope that they do not believe that the service can be patched up and that another huge tranche of taxpayers' money should be directed to an end that I believe is unachievable.
	If the chief executive wants another £500 million of taxpayers' money, I would prefer it to be given to the mothers and children who do not get their maintenance. We should not try to find the end of the rainbow and think that EDS—if only we feed the company more money—will come up with an IT system that is fit for purpose.
	So when we hear the Government statement, I hope that we will get two things from them. First, how can we improve this broken-backed system to provide a better service for claimants in the foreseeable future? There is no way that long-term reform can be introduced at a moment's notice. Secondly, how do we turn our attention to that serious long-term reform?
	Some of the contributions have already suggested to the Minister short-term measures that might help the agency perform better. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) suggested taking out of the day-to-day management of the system—or attempt to manage the system—what she euphemistically called complicated cases. Birkenhead constituents would have another name for fathers with multiple cases before the CSA. If those cases were dealt with by a special unit, that might help the running of the rest of the agency. My constituents might also suggest some sanctions that should be applied to such gentlemen, who might have up to 10 children by different partners, but parliamentary protocol prevents me from suggesting what that solution might be.
	As a further suggestion, is it possible to move over from the old system to the new system all those who, under the old system, have nil assessments? Most of those would be people who were on benefit when the assessment was made. Under the new system, all of them will be required to make a small contribution. Could not they as a group be moved over, or is the agency's IT system such that it cannot talk to the IT system of Jobcentre Plus? Is that the real reason why some of the obvious ways of immediately and significantly improving the performance of such a broken-backed agency are not encouraged?
	When the hon. Member for Vale of York was advocating the private sector, I thought that she would roll up her sleeves and make some suggestions. As she failed to do so, let me come to her aid. We should look to the private sector to help the agency trace parents for whom we have no addresses. Perhaps foolishly, I suggested in the House that we should call such personnel bounty hunters. I did not realise that the then Secretary of State would find that too shocking a suggestion. In this country we usually speak of bailiffs. Surely there is nothing to be lost by telling the private sector, "If you can find these people, you get paid. If you don't find them, there is no fee. Finding them and getting the first payments made will attract a very substantial sum indeed."
	Those are three suggestions that Ministers might consider when trying to patch up what is recognised in two parts of the House, if not the third, to be a broken-backed system that will not be made to work and is not for fit for purpose.
	When I read the Order Paper this morning, I had considerable sympathy for the position in which Balfour found himself when he led the Tory party, which was riven asunder by the issue of tariff reform—so much so that one Liberal Member of the day, hearing the then Prime Minister again trying to appease both sides of his party, said that the Prime Minister had once again come to the House and nailed his colours to the fence.
	Looking at the Order Paper, I wondered how anybody could not vote for the Liberal Democrat motion. I then read our amendment and wondered how anybody could not vote for that. It is the first time that our side has responded with a degree of wit when tabling amendments to the main motion. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will vote for the amendment, and that our side will pay the compliment of voting for the substantive motion.

Frank Field: Labour Members should support the Government amendment, but if it is not carried, we should support the Liberal Democrat motion.
	The serious message that we want the Government to take away from this debate is that the problems with the CSA are so deep-seated that radical solutions are required when the Government introduce their programme of reform. Although the number of people coming to my constituency surgery to complain about the CSA has dropped, it is not because the CSA is working better—it is because those people have given up hope of obtaining redress.
	I approach this debate with sadness and shame. I am sad that I did not persuade my side to embrace radical reform in 1998 and accept that we could not patch up the system and that all new money would be wasted. I am ashamed because when I walk around the market in my constituency, people who came to me with CSA cases when their children were young no longer talk to me—in many cases, those children have left school, but their mothers have not received a penny from the CSA. I am ashamed that I have not been more effective in this place in achieving the radical reform of the CSA, because we could have brought hope to those families. After the Government announce their programme of reform, I hope that we will not have to hang our heads in shame at how the service performs, but it is only by thinking outside the box that that might become a possibility.
	When the Government make their announcement, I hope that they say that they are seriously considering using the Inland Revenue rather than adopting the casework approach favoured by the Opposition of taking complicated cases with all their details over to the Inland Revenue system. If we move to an Inland Revenue system for enforcing maintenance, we must realise that it will be crude. We cannot build in all sorts of circumstances for the Revenue to take into account before it computes maintenance, because we will move from working out a benefit to working out a tax rate.
	The Government should examine converting maintenance payments to x pence in addition to the standard rate of tax for each single child, 2x pence for two children, 3x pence for three children and so on, in which case we would not have to lobby the agency about special circumstances that it should take into account before our constituents pay maintenance. Such a system would be crude, but it would be more effective, because more money would be delivered. It would also allow CSA staff to get on with what I thought they would spend the vast majority of their time doing when we first debated the agency—trying to ensure that the will of this House is enforced when it comes to supporting children.
	I want to say again how impressed I was by my hon. Friend the Minister's contribution, which it would pay the Opposition a huge dividend to read carefully tomorrow. From what the Minister has said, the Government have clearly moved on from the bunker mentality that they must defend the agency at all costs—the staff know that the Government are sympathetic given their task. The shame that I feel when I greet constituents who are yet to receive a penny in support is not because the staff have failed, but because this House of Commons has failed to set up an agency that at least has a chance of success, which is what I will look for when the Government introduce their big reform programme.

John Barrett: I am sure that I am not the only Member in the Chamber to be experiencing a sense of déjà vu. With the possible exception of newly elected Members, many of us have been here before. We have heard different Members stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents and seen different faces fielding questions from the Dispatch Box.
	Sadly, however, things have not improved. The Child Support Agency is still failing in its principal aim—to ensure that children whose parents do not live together are financially supported in a fair and just manner. Last time we debated the issue in this place, the CSA was failing to meet that aim. I would have liked nothing better than to come here today to congratulate the Minister, on behalf of my constituents, on achieving real progress and improvements in the system. However, the Minister will not be shocked to learn that I am unable to do so. The CSA has been a constant source of pain and misery for my constituents from the day on which I was elected in 2001 right up to my most recent surgery appointment last Friday. I would be hard pushed to say that I have noticed any real improvement in the system in the past five years. For as long as the CSA remains, hon. Members will continue to see problem cases in their surgeries and Ministers should expect to respond time and again to debates such as this.
	I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on his excellent introductory speech. In the Liberal Democrat 10-point plan that he mentioned, it is all summed up in the first sentence, which, under the heading, "Proposed Solutions", says that we believe that the existing agency should be scrapped. There are nine more detailed points, which I am sure that the Minister will mention when winding up.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House will recall the cross-party support that greeted the Child Support Act 1991 and the subsequent creation of the CSA. When it was established, it was supposed to be a mechanism for fairness and justice; in reality, it has proved to be a failing organisation that is ill-suited to its task and unable to help those who need it most. The unavoidable fact is that not only is it not working as well as it should, but that for many people it has never worked well, and for others it has been a complete disaster. The figures tell their own story. In the past four years, there have been 35,000 cases of maladministration. Unpaid maintenance is running at £1.7 billion. However, I will not concentrate too much on the figures, because we will become embroiled in squabbles about their authenticity, partly because we have heard them all before. The more important reason why we must not allow quarrels over statistics to hide the real stories lies in the details of those stories of hardship and misery caused to those dependent on the CSA.
	Perhaps the most extraordinary case that I have come across was that of one of my constituents, whose case is rumbling on five years after her original application. In 2000, she gave the CSA all the necessary documents. After hearing nothing for several weeks, she contacted it again, only to be told that it had no documents about her and she should send them off again. A few days later, she received a letter from the CSA returning the very documents that it had told her that it did not have and asking for more information. She phoned the Hastings office to be told that it was dealt with at Falkirk; Falkirk told her that it was being dealt with at Hastings. Such stories do little to inspire confidence in the system. Eventually, my constituent's papers were found in the Hastings office and a maintenance calculation was made, but no payments were ever forthcoming. The CSA kept on adding the missed payments on to arrears. Unsurprisingly, those payments were not made either.
	Two years after the original application was made, the CSA got round to making a liability order to the sheriff's office. It took another year for a public auction of the ex-partner's office goods to be organised. At that auction, he handed over a £1,000 cheque to the CSA, but it was no surprise to hear later that it bounced.
	While all this was taking place, my constituent rightly queried the exact amount of child maintenance awarded by the agency. She advised the CSA that her former husband had a variety of properties for which he received income and that he was in full-time work. Yet those figures were not included in the CSA's calculation. To this day, it appears that it never carried out proper investigations to verify the former wife's claims.
	Such delays are bad enough but the case highlights two further systemic problems with the CSA that I wish to raise. First, the agency often takes the former partner's declaration of income at face value. That is often a particular problem—to which the Under-Secretary referred—when the former partner is self-employed and it is difficult to verify the profits and income independently.
	I came across another case that involved a former husband who claimed that his income was £100 a week, on which the CSA calculated maintenance. Yet he had a new car, had recently been on holiday and had bought a new house. Is it possible that the CSA accepts the figures too easily and does not conduct proper investigations, which would find that no one who lives on £100 a week could have that lifestyle?
	That leads to the second problem: the former partners—the women—often have to become detectives. Lack of action by the agency means that the parents with the care of their children must sometimes turn into private investigators. They have to prove that the income of the non-resident parent is higher than is declared, rather than the non-resident parent having to prove that their income is as low as they claim. That simply cannot be right.
	Last Friday, I met a constituent, Jacqueline Peterson, to discuss her continuing problems with the CSA. Mrs. Peterson was divorced in 2003 and has had to follow up her former husband's activity. He is now remarried to a Russian internet bride, has bought a brand new hotel and a new house and runs around in a Mercedes, yet his CSA calculations are based on his income of less than £5 a week. Mrs. Peterson has been given no award. Perhaps the least that could be done is the withdrawal of his driving licence to stop him running about in his Mercedes.
	In my experience, that is not an isolated incident. In too many cases, the CSA has taken the word of one parent—often the father—as gospel and left the other, who is inevitably the mother, to chase up further details. She has to fight effectively to clear her name and is guilty until proven innocent. The CSA was not supposed to be about that. The fact that those women do not go screaming from roof tops, crane tops or Buckingham palace does not mean that they do not suffer or are any less deserving of justice for themselves and their children.
	I appreciate that other hon. Members are keen to speak and I shall therefore watch the time. Let me briefly mention IT. Other hon. Members have referred to the Work and Pensions Committee report, which was fairly damning about the new computer system. The costs and the cases have been well documented. Like other hon. Members, I do not believe that the problem is due to the front-line staff. Last year, I visited the CSA call centre in Falkirk and it was clear to me that the staff are not the villains in the story. Staff turnover and sickness rates are testament to the pressures under which they operate. Unfortunately, the price of the excess pressure is paid by people who rely on the system.
	What is the latest position regarding staffing levels at the CSA? The Under-Secretary's figures do not compute exactly with those given in written parliamentary answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil.
	Last year, I was given information about the company behind the much-maligned IT system. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will understand my concern at being told that the bottleneck of cases, which clogs up the computer system, was not caused purely by the system but by the Government's unwillingness to employ the necessary number of staff because of their fixation with reducing the number of civil servants. I was informed that IT suppliers were more than willing to take the rap for the CSA failings in order to secure far more lucrative contracts in future, including providing the IT system for the proposed identity card scheme.
	Although it is right to understand why the CSA has failed and to apportion blame if necessary, that does not change the fact that the system fails those whose well-being it is supposed to safeguard. It does not matter whether the Under-Secretary decides to blame staff management or the previous Conservative Government. The harsh reality is that the CSA is riddled with failings. There is little point in giving a building a new lick of paint if the foundations have been poorly laid. The system makes life worse for people who are already in difficult circumstances. Indeed, I have heard claims that the CSA may be the biggest administrative disaster in the history of the welfare state.
	The Minister will know of my party's long-standing policy to abolish the CSA and to move its assessment and enforcement functions to the Inland Revenue. Given the amount of cross-checking with the Inland Revenue that the CSA needs to do—but does not always carry out—that would seem an entirely practical and sensible solution. I accept that the situation will not be remedied overnight. However, this is a serious proposition and could provide the kind of government that this Labour Administration are so fond of. The fact is that far too many children are not getting the money that they need and deserve. Clearly, that is often the fault of the absent parent, but the Minister must nevertheless accept that, in too many cases—tens of thousands of them—children are not getting the help that they need because of the direct failure of the CSA to act quickly, effectively or at all. I keep hearing about the Prime Minister's eagerness to secure a political legacy. If he is looking for ideas, might I suggest that putting the CSA out of its misery would be a good place to start?

Dari Taylor: I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. One of the most difficult issues is that some men are capable of becoming completely invisible to those who would ensure that they fulfil their responsibilities.
	I speak from experience this afternoon. We have heard it said time and again that the CSA—which, implicitly, means its officers—is totally failing. However, I suggest that it is the determinedly clever men—who know all the tricks in the book and who will evade whatever system we introduce—who are the problem. We have given the CSA's officers an impossibly difficult task to perform. The Minister spoke earlier with great care, and I was pleased to hear the cautious and careful way in which he was prepared to suggest reforms to the CSA. I want to suggest to him that the agency should separate out the families in which the men are deliberately evading their responsibilities, and take them out of the system altogether. Let us then look at a system that could specifically respond to those circumstances.
	Alternatively, we should give the CSA investigatory powers to ensure that it can authorise surveillance to produce the evidence to stop the evasion. I want to persuade my hon. Friend the Minister that such an approach is essential.

Dari Taylor: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
	I want to move on. Many people speak as though the old system, which is extremely complex and dysfunctional, is the problem and the new system will, somewhere along the line, give us opportunities. I do not think that anyone has said that in the Chamber this afternoon. Of course, many fathers say it to me because they think they will be paying less, but the people involved in only 12 of my cases under the old system want to be on the new. I have a multitude of new cases that remain up in the air because we are struggling to get the appropriate evidence to make the errant father pay up.
	I want carefully and without naming names to outline two cases that are so valuable in terms of what I believe we need to be doing. Mrs. X was married for eight and a half years. Her husband left her; she had a son of six. The child is now 16 and she is owed £50,000 in arrears. This is an abysmal situation. The husband, Mr. X, claims to earn £22,000. The fact is that he works for an American company in Dubai and earns £52,000. He lives in a house worth £300,000 and has a mortgage for £215,000. That is evidence, but we cannot get it on paper. Because we cannot present that evidence on paper, we cannot get that man to pay up. In two years, Mr. X will have worked it brilliantly. The child will be 18 and there will be no more responsibility. It is highly likely that the child will go to university, and it will be the taxpayer who pays.
	I have another case, which I will describe to the House because I am so thrilled. It involves Mrs. Y, who took on Mr. Y with great support from the CSA. However, its investigatory powers are poor. This man claimed not to be working, but he works for an American company abroad and moves around a lot. She found out where he was living and checked on him. How she got the information I do not know, but she managed to produce concrete evidence of this person's income. She found that out; the CSA does not have the investigatory powers to do so.
	Mrs. Y discovered where Mr. Y was living, produced a marriage certificate and obtained his mobile phone records. This woman should be employed by the CSA. She is one serious bit of kit.

Dari Taylor: Mrs. Y now has sufficient evidence and the CSA has brought a case against Mr. Y. Enforcement action has been successful. I have a multitude of such cases, and I ask the Minister to consider investigatory powers.
	No wonder CSA officers feel stressed; if they have heard much of what has been said in the debate, they will be feeling even more stressed. I meet with them each month at my Stockton office. They have a clear sense of professionalism and they are determined to deliver, wherever and however, for the families, most particularly the children. I say to the House, please remember that CSA officers are handling 1.4 million cases, and that figure is growing. They are supporting more than 600,000 children and have collected £4.5 billion in maintenance.
	I have pleaded for the Minister to consider investigation. I also suggest that he take the multi-difficulty cases involving those who are deliberately avoiding and evading, and who will continue to do so, out of the system. Equally, let us put in the system people who want to pay—those who have a responsibility and who feel it appropriate—but properly, through the organisation. We must remember that when marriages break down, speaking to each other decently becomes more and more difficult. We should not think that having two families to care for is easy.
	We need a system whereby the decent parent can feel reassured that his payments are appropriate and are going to the children. This is the plea of all pleas: if Mrs. Y is not to be employed by the CSA—

Michael Weir: As I said in an intervention, I have dealt with the Child Support Agency for some 13 years, first as a solicitor and then as a Member of Parliament. I remember as a solicitor dealing with many cases relating to child maintenance and divorce. I found them the most emotionally draining to deal with, although I dealt with lots of other things as well. I cannot imagine what it is like to go into a CSA office day after day to deal with nothing but such cases. It must be a terribly stressful job for the staff, and I have a great deal of respect for the staff who do that.
	I reiterate what was said by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor): the staff should not be attacked, as it is not their fault that there is a problem with the agency. They are dealing with a very difficult situation. I understand that there is quite a large turnover of staff at the Falkirk office. That is partly because of the stress of the job—it is not surprising. I must also say to the Minister that these are probably not the best paid jobs in the civil service. We all know what is wrong with the agency.
	I also mentioned earlier a report in Scotland's Sunday Mail, which describes the famous report from Stephen Geraghty, which we have not seen, as a
	"damning report"
	that
	"calls for the agency's work to be shared between other Government departments."
	The article is headed, "We Don't Deserve Any More Support, Boss Says CSA Must Be Axed". I do not know whether he is saying that and the Minister will not tell us, but it is interesting that the counsel of despair has perhaps gone so far that the CSA's own boss does not see any great future for the agency. Having said that, I have some sympathy with the Minister's comments because, whatever we do, we have to have the CSA or something like it.
	Every constituency MP will have filing cabinets full of cases involving the agency. Those are certainly the biggest component of my case load, although complaints about tax credits are fast catching up. That is my objection to the Liberal Democrat proposal: to transfer the agency's functions to the Inland Revenue seems to me to be the equivalent of wilfully leaping out of the frying pan directly into the fire.
	The tax credit system is also failing those whom it is supposed to help. Indeed, several constituents have told me that they are so sickened by their treatment that they will no longer claim tax credits. That is a terrible indictment of the system. Adding to that chaos the chaos of the CSA would be insane. It should not be done.
	There is also a practical problem: the CSA works with one computer system while the Inland Revenue works with another. Are those systems at all compatible? Can we transfer, one between the other, or are we to pay the famous EDS another massive sum for a computer system that can run both together?
	As I also said earlier, the agency's problems go back to its very foundation. When the agency was established, there seemed to be no appreciation among those involved in setting it up of the lengths to which some parents will go to avoid taking responsibility for their children. In many cases and in many ways, it seemed that the agency almost tried to disguise that problem by concentrating on those who would pay, or at least pay something. That led to hundreds of cases in which huge arrears grew up, with little or nothing being done, although other parents were harassed by the agency. In my view, the agency has never got over that initial problem. What is in principle a good idea was undermined from the outset by its rushed introduction.
	I asked some parliamentary questions about the number of cases of arrears in my relatively small rural constituency. I was told that 600 cases had been outstanding for more than three months in Angus alone, and 26,000 across Scotland as a whole. That is an appalling situation. One case, in which the problems are compounded by various appeals and reassessments, has been going on for 10 years and continues. The parent with care is at the end of her tether and who can blame her? Another case, which is far from unique, was sent for enforcement and reached the stage at which the agency threatened the absent parent with imprisonment. He paid a little, and a schedule of payments was agreed. He paid for a couple of months and then stopped. Nothing was done. When action was eventually taken, the process started from scratch. Why on earth are such cases not rigorously monitored to ensure compliance? The answer in part, of course, is that there are not the staff to do it. Monitoring of compliance, however, is important.
	It is not just the agency that is at fault. One of the problems is that the agency has the ability to take people to court for failing to provide information or providing false information, which is a criminal offence that can go to the sheriff court in Scotland. I understand from those working in the agency, however, that many such cases that are reported to the court are not proceeded with by the fiscals. There is an urgent need for a multi-agency approach to link up the agency with the court and to make sure that the court plays its part.
	The Minister might think that it is my favourite reading, but there was another story in last Sunday's Sunday Mail—[Interruption.] I am trying hard. The case that it narrates is of someone who is owed £15,000 for a 14-year-old child. The case was taken to the court, but the sheriff decided that the father was
	"a drinker and a gambler and did not have the money to pay her."
	Again, that is a terrible indictment of what happens. If cases go from the CSA to the court, the court must play its part.
	There are numerous cases with large outstanding arrears. When the Scottish Affairs Committee examined the agency a couple of years ago we were assured that the collection of arrears was a priority. It seems that nothing has changed in the interim, however. I still have constituents who are chasing huge arrears, and worse still, in one recent case, a constituent who had been chasing substantial arrears for two years was suddenly told, "Sorry, it's a mistake; no arrears are actually due." The information given by the agency to parents is often at fault. As has been pointed out, there is contradictory information in letters, saying that things are being done that are not done. The case might come back a couple of months later, questions are asked about why nothing is being done, and the chase starts again.
	It is not just parents with care who have legitimate cause for complaint—there is the question of absent parents, not all of whom are trying to avoid payment. Indeed, in my experience, an awful lot of them accept that they must pay, but there are now at least two different systems, and in some cases there seem to be up to six operating in different areas. At least two are operating side by side, and people in identical situations can pay hugely different amounts. One constituent who contacted me recently pointed out that he was on the old system and was paying around £500 per month, while a work colleague in an identical situation who was on what I suppose we could still call a new system—although it is some three years since it should have been introduced—is paying less than £200. Such glaring and obvious inequalities fuel discontent and undermine the agency still further.
	A steady stream of constituents have that complaint, and there is little that MPs can do. If we contact the Minister—I am sure that most of us have done it—we get the formulaic reply that it would be irresponsible to transfer old cases on to the new system until such time as there is certainty that the computer system is robust. That is fair enough, but how long does it take to get a robust computer system? It is now three years since the new system was introduced, and yet few cases have been transferred.
	As I also pointed out earlier, it is worth noting to constituents that even being transferred to the new system might not necessarily help. There is a common misconception that many men, when they are transferred from the old to the new system, will immediately have a large fall in payments. That is not the case. There is a taper, and because of the delay in introducing the system many who have children in their teens will get no benefit from a transfer now. Even under the new system, one fifth of cases contain errors.
	As I said, I have some sympathy with the Minister. I do not blame the Government for all the problems of the agency. They inherited a mess, but they have now had eight years and the mess does not seem to be getting much better. Urgent action is now needed. A fundamental root-and-branch reform of the agency is required. I do not have all the answers—I wish that I did, as perhaps I would be made chief executive, which I am sure is worth a lot more than standing here. When the new system was introduced, there was real hope that the mess would be tackled, but nothing seems to have improved.
	I do not support the abolition of the agency, because, as I said, something would have to be put in its place—if not the agency, then something similar. We cannot go back to the old courts system. I cannot speak for the courts in England, but the courts in Scotland could not cope with a massive influx of child support cases. It would overwhelm the system and lead to utter collapse. The one point that the old system had in its favour, which struck me when the Minister outlined it, was an ability to have a quick interim assessment made on ex parte statements. If 300,000 cases are awaiting even the initial assessment, it seems to me that one way to get some speed into the system would be to reintroduce the interim assessment, either through the courts or some other agency, that will at least give a quick decision that will allow enforcement while a full investigation is made of the facts.
	In a previous debate in Westminster Hall, the Minister gave an assurance that there would be no job cuts in the CSA until the problems had been sorted out. There have been various comings and goings about the numbers in the CSA, and I do not intend to enter into that argument. There is, however, a question of resources—we need people who can do the investigation, the calculation and the enforcement.
	To ensure fairness, all cases need to be treated in the same way, to ensure that the pubic have confidence in the agency's methods. That means that we must go forward and move everybody on to the same system. To cut the Gordian knot, that must be done. We cannot continue with the complexity of different systems—an old computer system, a new computer system, a manual system and a part-manual system. I cannot understand why there are so many systems. The case of one constituent on the new system, for some reason that I could not understand, would not work on the computer, so it went back to a manual system, but she was told that she had to phone the agency every month to remind it to take the money and pay it into her bank account. That seems a bizarre way to proceed.
	The agency has lost public confidence. Root-and-branch reform is necessary. I do not support a transfer to the Inland Revenue, which would be going from bad to worse. I can happily support the Liberal Democrat motion, because it does not provide a specific solution, and I can also happily support the Government's amendment, which recognises the difficulties with the agency. While it mentions Stephen Geraghty's report, however, it does not tell us what is in it and what the Government will do. Until we get that information, all that we can say—[Interruption.] The Minister says that we will get it soon, but how soon is soon? In this place, soon seems to be anything from tomorrow to next year. If there is a date for an announcement, let us hear what the Government have to say. Reform is urgently required, and I think that the Minister accepts that it must be a root-and-branch reform and a real cleaning out of the agency.

Martin Horwood: I join other Members in praising the dedication of the staff of the Child Support Agency. I agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is no longer present, that it takes some dedication to work day after day for an organisation that faces such problems. A late friend of mine who was a management consultant for the agency said as long ago as the 1990s that it had failed the dinner-party test: its staff were not prepared to admit that they worked for it when they met people for the first time over dinner. The problems seem to have continued and multiplied since then. I shall cite two constituency cases, which demonstrate that the scale of evasion is not the only cause of those problems. Systematic inefficiencies, poor systems and the poor quality of decision making in the agency cannot be overlooked.
	A constituent of mine first made a claim on 15 October 2004. Rather unusually—because, as she rather charmingly said, she had heard that the CSA was not a very efficient organisation—she kept a log of what followed. After 11 months, 22 telephone calls and two faxes, her log contained a litany of computer problems, calls, complaints and information that had not been acted on, promised updates that had not been given, and failure to act on payment defaults on which she had been told that action had been taken. No effective work was done on her case for month after month and, inexplicably, the whole case was transferred from Dudley to Plymouth halfway through. It all culminated on 6 September 2005 with a call from a CSA caseworker, who offered to help her with her new claim—11 months after the original claim had been submitted. As any manager knows, such inefficiency increases not just the queue but the burden. It complicates the position and makes it worse.
	In the second case, a couple separated and the child stayed with the woman. She made a claim through CSA and a payment assessment was made. The amount was not paid by her ex-partner, who was self-employed. The extent of the arrears is a matter of dispute between her and the agency, but there certainly were arrears. At that stage, the child moved house from one parent to the other. The woman's self-employed ex-partner then made a claim against her for payment. Because she was a salaried public employee, she automatically had to pay. She was therefore paying twice—she was paying for the period during which the child had stayed with her and also for the period during which the child was staying with her ex-partner. When we asked whether the arrears could be offset against the payments, we were inexplicably told that they could not. Apparently, it was beyond the competence of the agency even to entertain the idea.
	I feel that that case constitutes an argument for some separation, or a degree of escape, from absolute dependence on the receipt of payments from one partner before payments are made to the other. Surely the reputation, at least, of the Inland Revenue might give people pause before they evaded payments in such a systematic way. While certain schemes may have caused problems, that reputation, and the Revenue's general efficiency, suggest that it should be given responsibility.
	Would tagging have helped in either case? Of course not. The CSA is an organisation that has been in crisis for many years. The platform on which the Minister wanted to build is broken. The agency is not fit for its purpose and it is time to return to the drawing board, preferably with cross-party support if it can be mustered. I see no ideological divide; I simply see a very serious problem, the victims of which are children and families in my constituency and across the country. That problem has been allowed to drag on for far too long.

Paul Rowen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) for initiating the debate, and to the many Members who have made such thoughtful contributions to it. I think that the welfare of the child is at the heart of all our concerns. Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), many thousands of young people are still not receiving the support that they so richly deserve. Like many other Members, I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government propose to restore confidence in a process that—as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) rightly said—is half broken.
	The fundamental issue, as was eloquently pointed out by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), is the lack of public confidence in the CSA. That was brought home to me forcefully during the summer recess when a friend told me about his two daughters, both divorced and both with children, neither of whom were bothering to chase up support from the children's fathers through the CSA. They had been so put off by the experiences of friends that they decided to go on bringing up their children on their own.
	The Minister made much of the need for more enforcement. How does he propose to make that work? I am currently dealing with the case of a grandfather who is bringing up three children on his old age pension because their mother has died. A court order was issued last March, and in November the police were still refusing to enforce it and take the father to court. Last week, I received a letter from the police saying that as the father had had an accident and been taken to hospital, they would not pursue the case further. That is unacceptable. If we are to have enforcement, we must have enforcement all along the line. All the agencies involved must ensure that those who refuse to pay are brought to book.
	In his answer to the question that he was asked in November, the Prime Minister said that he felt that the CSA was trying to do too much—that it was taking on too much. What is it being asked to do? It must carry out assessments; then there must be the collection; then there must be enforcement in the cases of the all too many fathers who will not pay up readily.
	Mine is the only party that has today suggested ways in which the system could be reformed. If the Minister will not consider wholesale transfer of responsibility to the Inland Revenue, will he accept the view of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead that the Revenue could be used effectively to enforce collection? Nothing focuses the mind more strongly than an effect on the pay packet. The root of the problem is the lack of clear enforcement procedures which enables so many people not to own up to what they earn and not to make regular payments. Whatever may be said about tax credits, the Inland Revenue is an excellent collection agency. A system to enforce some form of collection—albeit rather crude—would bring people to book.

Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil spelt out in some detail our policy—indeed, so far, ours is the only party to do so—of transferring functions to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. That is a clear, sensible and forward-looking policy, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House when we come to vote.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) is successful in his bid to get into The Mail on Sunday. Having pointed that out, I shall press on, as we are short of time and the Minister has a number of points that she wishes to make.
	For reasons that have been outlined, the CSA has been in a state of almost perpetual crisis since it was established by the Conservatives in 1993, and it is still in crisis today. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions report of January last year described it as
	"a failing organisation which is currently in crisis",
	and suggested that
	"consideration be given to the option of winding it up".
	In November 2005, during Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister said:
	"I make no defence of the current situation . . . The truth is that the agency is not properly suited to carry out that task."—[Official Report, 16 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 964.]
	He may have decided that it was appropriate to make no defence of the current situation, but the Minister who opened for the Government was not entirely sure whether to bury the agency or to praise it. On the one hand, he called for a fundamental review; on the other, he described the Government's policy as one of trying to get the agency on to a stable footing, with no quick fixes. Given that it is 13 years since the CSA's establishment, quick fixes are hardly what we are contemplating.
	The Minister referred to the CSA chief executive's report, and I echo the call of several Members for that report to be published. The Government asked for a copy of our proposals earlier today, and I furnished them with one within minutes. I hope that they will show similar alacrity in publishing the chief executive's report. As was pointed out, that would be a fair exchange. It has to be said that the Minister's approach sounds like tinkering, rather than the fundamental reform that we Liberal Democrats hope will form the substance of the Government's policy, when it is finally published. The central question of this debate is, should we have fundamental reform, or will there be yet more tinkering? In that context, it is worth noting one of the substantive differences between our motion and the Government's amendment to it. Our motion refers to the loss of public confidence in the CSA—a point that was neither echoed in the Government's amendment nor tackled by the Minister. After 13 wasted years, the time has come for fundamental reform of the CSA.
	Reference has been made to the various problems associated with the CSA. It collects just £1.85 in maintenance for every £1 it spends on administration, and the amount of uncollected maintenance has tripled since 1997—from £1.1 billion to £3.3 billion in 2004–05. I should be grateful if the Minister would address in her winding-up speech the issue of the number of staff. We were told today that there are 10,027 members of staff, and that that figure should rise to 11,000 by the end of March. But in a written answer of 9 January—only a week ago—the Minister herself said that the target figure for the number of staff by the end of March 2006 was 9,400. I should be grateful if she would explain why there has been such a rapid transformation in the objectives. It may be because of this debate being called, but perhaps the written answer was referring to full-time equivalents while the Minister was referring to a head-count. Will she clarify that and, if necessary, correct the record?
	Reference has been made to staff turnover, the rate of which at the CSA is a very high 17 per cent. Increasing the number of members of staff may be part of the answer, but ensuring that they stay in their jobs and can build up the experience needed, which has been rightly urged by hon. Members, is important.
	Hon. Members have said that, in many cases, the CSA is there to serve the poorest in society and is fundamental to the tackling of child poverty, which I know is of concern to hon. Members on both sides. Maintenance is received in only 25 per cent. of cases where a lone parent is on benefit; that is down from 28 per cent. when Labour came to power and no better than in 1989 when the agency was set up, despite a public service agreement target to raise the level by March 2006. Underlying those statistics are thousands upon thousands of individuals with experience of repeated failure, and many hon. Members have mentioned such cases.
	We need a fundamental reform based on clear principles. The first is that parents have a moral responsibility to maintain their children whenever they can afford to do so. The child's well-being must be paramount in everything that we do. The fact that, earlier this year, only one in five cases was having maintenance collected shows that whatever the successes in some cases—hon. Members have mentioned some successes—in the vast majority of cases maintenance is not collected and the agency is failing.
	Families should have the right to determine their own level of support where they are fully informed about all aspects of the matter and where the interests of the taxpayer are not affected. The organisation responsible for arranging and enforcing child support must command the respect of the public, and it is fair to say that the CSA does not. The assessment of maintenance liabilities must be administratively straightforward, efficient, transparent and relatively predictable, which is one of the advantages of transferring the CSA's functions to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, an organisation with a good reputation in dealing efficiently with its business.

Danny Alexander: No, I will press on.
	I have been highly critical of the operation of the tax credits policy, but that is the fault of the policy as much as anything else. One of the major problems with tax credits is that the computer system has been far too effective in taking money out of bank accounts before appropriate appeals and assessments have been carried out. That efficiency, while inappropriate in the case of tax credits, would be an asset in dealing with the collection of money from absent or feckless parents and the passing on of that money to the children who, after all, should be the main beneficiaries of the policy.
	Where individuals believe that justice has not been done because of exceptional individual circumstances, a process of arbitration must be available to look at the case and come to a judgment that is swift, fair and final. We propose that a new child support arbiter be set up. Once the functions were transferred to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the arbiter would be there to deal with those difficult cases in a way that is fair, swift and final.
	A truly child-centred policy must look beyond merely enforcing the financial obligations of non-resident parents and do more to encourage the involvement of both parents in their children's upbringing. The CSA was set up under a Conservative Government and the failings began then; it has not been improved under Labour—indeed, the problems of the new system highlight that. As we know from our constituents, parents have no confidence in the CSA; the Select Committee has no confidence in the agency; and it is clear from answers in this House last year that the Prime Minister has no confidence in the agency, either.
	An alternative proposal that is simpler, fairer and effective does exist. It is to transfer the functions of the CSA to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. I have heard no other proposals come forward; I know the Government are holding their breath, as we all are, for their own proposals to be published in due course. It would be helpful if the Minister gave the House some idea of when the Government's proposals will be published. Will it be a few days, weeks or months?The Government have had eight years to look at this and I hope they will give us some idea of when they will come forward with their proposals for reform.
	Parliament today should give hope to the hundreds of thousands of parents whose lives have been made a misery and in some cases wrecked by the CSA and to the children it is failing to help by recognising that the agency has utterly failed beyond any possibility of reform. Lack of confidence and respect for the CSA will translate into a lack of respect for Parliament, and rightly so, if we do not finally act to deal with the problem as we have proposed.
	I conclude by commending the motion to the House and urging the Government to embrace a policy of fundamental reform of the CSA, rather than tinkering at the edges.

Anne McGuire: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for what has been a mature and deliberative debate on a difficult issue. It is important to recognise the areas where there is agreement, regardless of which political perspective we come from. We all agree that it is right that parents, whether or not they have care of the child, should take financial responsibility for the child; that this financial support should be reasonable and accurately reflect the true cost of bringing up a child; that for the most part, these support responsibilities work best when they are undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two adult parents, even if the administration has to be carried out by a third party such as the CSA through maintenance direct; and that where that cannot or does not happen, there should be the involvement of a statutory intermediary, previously mainly the courts and now the CSA.
	There is agreement on both sides that for a variety of reasons, many of which we have heard explained today—some of which I hope to cover in the next few minutes—collectively as parliamentarians and legislators, we have not yet cracked how best to provide that intermediary support so that it can carry out its functions in the best interests primarily of the children, while recognising that it is a parent's primary responsibility to provide for their child and not that of taxpayers.
	I want to thank the Liberal Democrats who have now published their weighty tome on their website. I was lucky enough to get a copy; Liberal Members had a wee conflab and decided that it was safe to give it to me. I must say that I would not miss "The Bill" tonight reading it. Most of the information it contains is already in the public domain, provided by the 158 parliamentary questions asked by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). It is extremely light on analysis.

Anne McGuire: I love the depth of the questions that are sometimes put to Ministers. I shall deal with the report in a few seconds.
	Today's debate has highlighted yet again the breadth and complexity of the problems facing the CSA. Many of those problems stem from the way that the agency was set up originally, as even some Conservative Members agree. The CSA was established with strong cross-party support, and it is fair to say that the complexity of the issues that it had to deal with was recognised only slowly by the Government of the day.
	The principles underlying the CSA were correct, although some people suspected that the priority might have been saving benefits rather than helping children. However, a process in which up to 100 separate pieces of information could be demanded from parents was almost impossible to implement efficiently. Often, those parents no longer communicated with each other and were reluctant to deal with a third party. A forest must have been sacrificed to provide the paper for the continual stream of assessments that were sent out.
	I was elected in 1997, and I remember dealing with my first CSA complaint. It was a bit like going on my first date. [Interruption.] The emotions and issues were complex—

David Laws: May we move away from the Minister's previous experiences, and focus on the reduction in the number of CSA staff? Last week, she signed off on an answer to a parliamentary question that included information about staff reductions, but her colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), said earlier that staff numbers were rising. Which is it?

Anne McGuire: Well, the hon. Gentleman knows that I will not give him a specific date, but I will give him an assurance that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes a statement to the House, he will also indicate what documents will be put in the public domain and what information will be seen by the House.
	The amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not ask the House to ignore the difficulties that the agency faces in carrying out the duties set for it by Parliament. It recognises that the agency is not properly suited to carrying out its current task. Our amendment also makes it clear that once we have considered our conclusions, we will present them to the House. Given that the Liberal Democrat motion asks us only to note the obvious, like some school debating motion, I ask them to withdraw it.
	The House has been patient on this matter, and I also thank those parents caring for children for whom the system has not delivered for their patience. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure in due course that the House is fully informed of the solutions that we think that we can put in place for the reform of the agency.
	Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Norman Baker: My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said before he left the Chamber that Labour Members would raise that issue, because they are desperate to find anything to divide the Liberal Democrats—[Interruption]—and he asked me to make it clear that he is no advocate for nuclear power. Those are the words that he asked me to pass on to the House, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to do so. I wait to hear whether there is unanimity among Labour Members or, indeed, Conservative Members.

John Spellar: It is a question of unity not among Members, but among Front-Benchers. As far as I am aware, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) is the Scottish spokesman on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party. Will he stay as part of the Front-Bench team if he does not agree with the policy of his own party? Who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats—or, as usual, are they saying one thing in one area and another thing in another?

David Chaytor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the life cycle emissions of nuclear are an important matter. Is not the discrepancy between the two figures that we have heard quoted likely to be the result of the lower figure not taking account of the full nuclear life cycle? That is to say that it does not take account of the full impact of CO 2 emissions from uranium mining, and it certainly does not take account of emissions from waste management, because we do not yet know how to manage nuclear waste.

Norman Baker: I suspect that that explains the difference, but it is not possible to prove that without examining the matter further.
	The reason why we cannot have the mix referred to is simple: there is only so much money. A new generation of nuclear power stations would be hugely expensive to build and would draw heavily on the public purse. We have seen over the past 20 years that when money is put into nuclear, there is none left for renewables and energy efficiency. They will wither on the vine and the message that will go out to the renewables industry is, "Nuclear is back big time—you can forget about your wind farms, your tidal power and your solar power." We cannot have them all together.

Norman Baker: Our proposal is not about nuclear fusion, but we do not oppose continuing scientific investment in nuclear fusion—although I have to say that over the years nuclear fusion has swallowed up a great deal of money and we have little to show for it, whereas if the money had been spent on renewables and energy efficiency we would be in a better position than we are today.
	I note that an early-day motion tabled by Labour Members in May last year stated that commissioning
	"a new fleet of nuclear generating stations . . . would inevitably involve massive public subsidies which could be used to greater benefit in promoting the deployment of renewable generators and, most especially, the marine technologies of wave and tidal steam exploiting the uniquely rich natural energy resources of the United Kingdom."
	There is undoubtedly a strong feeling in the House, not confined to Liberal Democrat Members, that there is an alternative way forward which the Minister ought to grab. We cannot maintain the big tent philosophy that pretends that we can have everything; we cannot. If we have nuclear, everything else will be squeezed out. That is the message that the Government have not accepted, but they need to accept it before the review proceeds much further. There is not enough money for all the technologies. The grid will be designed to serve the nuclear industry and will be counter-productive to the decentralised energy future that I want us to have.
	It is worth pointing out that the Government's performance and innovation unit estimates that the unit electricity cost of the new AP1000 will be between 3p and 4p per kWh, that of onshore wind 1.5p to 2.5p per kWh and that of offshore wind 2p to 3p per kWh.

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes the recent announcement of an energy review to assess future options on both the supply and demand for energy including the role of civil nuclear power; and notes the Government's energy policy as set out in the 2003 Energy White Paper, to make progress towards the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050, to maintain the reliability of energy supplies, to promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond and to ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated."
	I welcome the debate at this important time for our energy policy. Although I agreed with little that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) said, I nevertheless congratulate him on securing the debate. In response to some noises on the Labour Benches—I hope that my colleagues will not mind my referring to them as noises on this occasion—the hon. Gentleman said they were seeking to divide his party. With that project, his party needs no help at present.
	The House is aware that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have asked me to lead a review of UK energy policy, including civil nuclear power. The review is under way and proposals will be brought forward by the summer. We will launch our consultation document with a written statement to the House on Monday. I hope that all Members will study that document and contribute to the important debate.
	The question has been raised of why we should have a review now.

Malcolm Wicks: We will want to look at the cost comparisons, as well as other comparisons.
	Why have a review? The situation has moved on since we set out our energy policies in 2003. Our own energy output in the North sea has declined faster than anticipated and we have moved to being a net gas importer earlier than envisaged. We could become a net importer of oil, too, by the end of this decade. There have been changes beyond our borders—we have seen slower than expected liberalisation in the EU, leading to exposure to higher, more volatile prices. Global demand for energy has increased massively as economies such as China have boomed. China's energy demand is increasing by about 15 per cent. each year.
	There are lessons to be learned from these changing circumstances and from what we have already experienced this winter, both in the UK and overseas. The energy review is not a reaction to this winter, but a planned response to the lessons that we have learned and the changes that we have experienced since 2003. We are taking action now in order to keep us on track, or in some cases to put us back on track, for our long-term energy goals.
	Key questions need to be answered. How do we ensure affordable energy in the future? How do we deliver a 60 per cent. reduction in our carbon targets? How do we manage our reliance on imported gas? In a nutshell, how can we make sure that we have a fully fledged energy market that provides energy that is secure, affordable and clean? Those are big questions and they raise vital issues that are, of course, complex, intricate and interrelated. There are important links between any decisions that we make as a result of the review, including decisions on civil nuclear power.
	It will not come as a surprise when I say that we are not looking for simplistic yes or no responses to complex issues, particularly on civil nuclear power. The Liberal Democrat spokesman said a few moments ago that if—and it is a big if—we go down the nuclear path again, there will be room for nothing else. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is total nonsense. The name of the game is not to talk about enthusiasm for renewables, nuclear, biomass or wind turbines, but to ask a duller but perhaps a more sensible question about how we build up 100 per cent. of energy supply, not the contribution that this or that technology might make—30 per cent., 5 per cent. or 20 per cent.

Malcolm Wicks: Certainly, massive investment is required in infrastructure and power plants over the next 10, 20 or 30 years. People are looking forward eagerly to the results of the review on a wide range of topics. It is not a nuclear review, but as the Prime Minister made clear, in reviewing our energy policy and in the context of securing a diverse—I emphasise "diverse"—energy mix, we need to consider the future role of civil nuclear power.
	Nuclear is already part of the mix. Nuclear energy accounts for about 19 per cent. of our electricity generation, but the current generating plants are ageing and most are scheduled to be decommissioned over the coming 15 years or so, as we have heard. As things stand, it is estimated that by 2020 only about 7 per cent. of our electricity might come from nuclear. From an international perspective, there are several countries showing interest in new nuclear build. China and India have a building programme under way, with more new reactors planned or at the proposal stage. Closer to home, Finland has started construction of a new plant, and France also has proposals for new plant.
	Nuclear might provide some of the answers going forward, but there are major factors to be considered, such as management of waste, costs and safety. We also need an evidence-based look at what new nuclear technologies can offer. Even if, and I emphasise that it is a big if, new nuclear could provide some of the answers, it could never be the whole picture. When one looks not just at electricity but at UK energy consumption as a whole, including transport, we see that nuclear contributes 8 per cent.—a significant percentage, but only 8 per cent.
	The Government are clear that, in making important decisions about energy policy, including nuclear, there should be the fullest public consultation. The document that we shall issue on Monday is part of that process. The Government are not, at this stage, presenting policy proposals. The hon. Member for Lewes rather implied that we were. He needs to wait. Before any decision to proceed with the building of a new generation of nuclear power plants, a further White Paper setting out our proposals would need to be published.
	The 2003 White Paper concluded that nuclear power was an important source of carbon-free electricity. It remains so. However, its economics made it an unattractive option then for new, carbon-free generating capacity, and there were also important issues of nuclear waste to be resolved. These issues included our legacy waste and continued waste arising from other sources. However, the White Paper did not rule out the possibility that at some point in the future new nuclear build might be necessary if we are to meet our carbon targets.
	The Government are aware that since the White Paper, new nuclear plants are being built in the far east and in Finland and that there have been a number of new studies on the costs of nuclear power. The review will therefore conduct a rigorous analysis and examine all the evidence on the economics of all forms of generation for both fossil fuel and low-carbon technologies.

Malcolm Wicks: How we handle decommissioning in terms of not only waste, but the local environment is critical.
	On skills and research, new nuclear build is not the only issue that we should consider in relation to civil nuclear power. The operation and eventual decommissioning of existing nuclear plant will require a highly skilled work force, which is why the Government have introduced measures to support and develop skills and research. The Cogent sector skills council was licensed last year, and it is taking a strategic view of the nuclear sector, ensuring that the education and training base can meet the needs of nuclear employers. Cogent is also working closely with the NDA and its contractors to ensure that the necessary skills are available and sustained.
	The research councils are playing their part in providing prospects for nuclear energy research. Opportunities for fission research are available as part of the Research Councils UK towards a sustainable energy economy initiative, and the UK is participating in the generation IV international forum, which plans a co-ordinated programme of international research into advanced reactor systems.
	Safety is a crucial issue, and the UK has an excellent record. Both the Government and the UK civil nuclear industry take very seriously their responsibilities for ensuring the safety of activities at nuclear installations. The stringent regulatory regime provides for the application of high standards of safety aimed both at minimising radiation exposures from normal operations and at preventing accidental releases of radioactivity at nuclear installations.

Norman Baker: Does the Minister regard how the nuclear industry has dealt with the legacy problems at Sellafield as demonstrating proper regard for safety?

Colin Challen: I am pleased to hear that the review will not be pre-empted. Will the Minister take this opportunity to put on the record that the Government do not believe, as one of his predecessors said, that uranium is indigenous to this country or, as Lord Sainsbury of Turville said in the other place, that nuclear power is renewable? Neither of those two statements is sensible, rational or grown-up.

Colin Challen: It is truly depressing to witness the breakdown in the cross-party consensus that was launched last year on climate change, which must affect energy policy. However, is the hon. Gentleman trying to have his cake and eat it? The Conservative party's review will report a year after the Government's. I wonder whether that will give the new Conservative party enough time to shift its stance to whatever public opinion says that it should be.

Michael Meacher: As the energy review gets under way, one assumption goes almost unchallenged. It is that renewables alone cannot fill the looming energy gap—a point that has just been made—and that, therefore, a revival of civil nuclear power is inevitable. I believe that to be false.
	Before I give my reasons, I emphasise that no satisfactory explanation has been given for the energy review, given that the Government carried out a full-scale, thorough and comprehensive investigation, over two to three years, leading to the energy White Paper of February 2003. Events since then—increasing dependence on foreign supplies of gas and oil and high oil and gas prices—were long anticipated and only reinforced the conclusions that were reached at that time. They do not alter them in any way.
	As the Minister for Energy rightly said, nuclear accounts for approximately 19 per cent. of electricity generation and, as the Magnox and advanced gas-cooled reactors are decommissioned, it will reduce to around 7 per cent. by 2020. Let us assume—I am the first to admit that it is not certain—that gas generation of electricity may increase slightly by 2020 and that coal generation may decrease slightly, the main question is whether the gap from the 12 per cent. reduction in nuclear will be filled by a new programme of nuclear build or by renewables. That is the central issue.
	The Government already have a commitment to achieving a target of obtaining 10 per cent. of our electricity from renewables by 2010, and an aspiration to reach 20 per cent. by 2020. Of course, it is true that renewables generation is starting from a low base. However, the proportion of electricity that they provide has almost doubled in the past four years, and it is now sufficient to supply more than 2 million households.The argument for relying on renewables alone to fill the gap is very strong, because nuclear power is beset by several severe problems that, in my view, rule it out as a sensible option. I am not against it being considered; I am simply saying that, when we do so, it will be ruled out for very good reasons, if—and this is the big question—an effective alternative is available.
	First, there is the question of cost. The Government's own advisory body, the performance and innovation unit, has calculated that the cost of electricity in the UK in 2020 is likely to be about 1.5p per kWh from on-land wind; 2p to 3p from offshore wind; 2p to 2.3p from gas; 3p to 3.5p from coal; and 3p to 4p from nuclear power. I am aware that the nuclear industry is saying that the AP1000 series reactor will be cheaper than that, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) pointed out. However, he also made the key point that no prototype has yet been built to prove that assumption. We simply do not know whether it will be the case. We can be certain, however, that the cost of nuclear-generated electricity will be significantly higher if—as should be the case if we are to have a level playing field—the cost of decommissioning the nuclear plant and of the waste management is to be factored into the price. That is a crucial consideration.

Michael Meacher: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point; I would endorse that.
	The Government's nuclear decommissioning agency has already said that the cost that taxpayers will have to bear from decommissioning nuclear plant—to be fair, this includes military as well as civil installations—will be about £56 billion. That relates to operations over the whole of the past half century. It is an astronomically high cost to the taxpayer, amounting to about 5 per cent. of our entire gross domestic product. If these enormous external liabilities were to be written in to the consumer price—which might be the right thing to do—nuclear power would be nowhere near competitive. Alternatively, they could be left as a huge tax burden for future generations, but would anyone seriously suggest that that was a fair and reasonable option?
	Nuclear power has other drawbacks. We already have 10,000 tonnes of highly toxic intermediate and high-level nuclear waste, mainly at Sellafield. That waste has a half-life of tens of thousands of years, and nobody knows how to dispose of it safely. The Finns think that they might have a solution, but that has not yet been proven. An official estimate in a DTI White Paper is that, even without any new nuclear build, decommissioning will increase the amount of waste 50-fold to 500,000 tonnes by the end of this century. Is it rational or responsible to create yet more mountains of dangerous waste before we have found a satisfactory form of long-term disposal for the gigantic quantity that we already have? I am glad that the Minister also asked that question.
	We must also take into account the risk of nuclear proliferation and the dangers, post-9/11, of a terrorist attack. A recent US study estimated the health impact of an attack on a nuclear reactor at 44,000 immediate deaths, with 500,000 long-term health impacts, including cancers. It is therefore quite clear that nuclear power should be avoided. As I have said, I am not against looking into the matter, but there seems to be very clear evidence that we should avoid it—if we can. Can renewables realistically fill the gap? The independent consultant, Oxera, has recently predicted that the Government will virtually achieve their target of 10 per cent. of electricity generation from renewables by 2010. The EU renewable energy directive already stipulates 22 per cent. electricity generation from renewables for Europe by 2010, so the UK is likely to come under a great deal of pressure, perhaps mandatory pressure, to move swiftly to reach 20 per cent. as soon as possible after that date.
	The question is whether that is realistic. That it is realistic is shown by the performance of other states. At a time—I am talking about 2001, when these figures were compiled—when Sweden generated 57 per cent. of its electricity from renewables, including hydro; Finland 33 per cent.; Portugal 30 per cent.; and Italy, Denmark, Spain and France all between 13 and 19 per cent., the UK managed just 2.7 per cent. It is not that the UK lacks potential; it simply has not been exploited.
	The UK has about 40 per cent. of Europe's potential wind power, but we are using less than 1 per cent., so there can be no serious doubt about the fact that the 12 per cent. gap that will be left by nuclear by 2020, and significantly more, can be fully met by renewables alone—without the higher costs, without the environmental and health hazards, and without the terrorist risks of nuclear.
	It is equally clear that we do not need nuclear to achieve our Kyoto climate change obligations if there is a better alternative available, as there clearly is. Even AEA Technology, the former research arm of the Atomic Energy Authority, thought that a quarter of Britain's electricity needs could be met by building the world's largest complex of wind farms—

Andrew Stunell: I want to concentrate on issues relating to nuclear waste disposal. Everyone agrees that solving that problem is the precondition for nuclear to go ahead in the future. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) might want to read my two books on the subject, or possibly the Liberal Democrat policy document "Conserving the Future", which was published in September 2004. It will give him the answers he seeks. There are engineering and scientific issues to be dealt with, as well as economic and environmental issues and social and political issues. The hon. Gentleman making attacks in such a way trivialises the issue.
	Since the publication of our proposals, plenty has happened in relation to nuclear power. Some of it has been positive, such as the creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which has separated the generation of waste from disposal. It was absolutely right to do that. Other examples are the free-standing commission to establish the process and the options for dealing with waste, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management—CoRWM. It was absolutely right to set that up, and I was happy to play a part in the Energy Act 2004, ensuring that it went forward.
	We also need to recognise the fact that some negative things have happened as well. British Energy went bust. British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. accidentally released a swimming-bathful of radioactive liquid—never mind a football pitch. The Department of Trade and Industry estimate for managing waste has gone up from £48 billion to £56 billion, and is about to go up yet again, as we have heard. We now know that the British Energy costs taken over by the Government will amount to £3.3 billion, starting with 10 yearly payments of £181 million.
	How one adds those figures up and the outcomes that one gets are difficult and controversial matters. One can argue about discounted costs, undiscounted costs and so on, but no one doubts that a huge amount of taxpayers' money has already been committed to the clean up, and an even bigger sum is to follow. We have not got to the end of it yet. My hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) referred to the situation at Dounreay and the possible £70 billion extra for clearing up the beaches and the seabed there.
	All the enormous costs referred to so far relate to cleaning up, decommissioning and making safe, not to ultimate safe keeping. That is not in the figures we have discussed. What happens to the spent fuel rods, the reactor housings and the contaminated pipe work— and, for that matter, what will happen to the 10,000 metallic radioactive particles on the seabed at Dounreay—is still not known by anybody. Nobody knows how much it will cost and where it will all go.
	The Government answer to all such questions is, "We don't know yet, but we are looking for a man who does." Of course, that is through the CoRWM process. I welcome the setting up of CoRWM, which has covered quite a lot of ground. In fact, it has covered more—space, sea and the four corners of the universe to see whether there is somewhere it can send the waste to. However, as the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee pointed out in December 2004, CoRWM is in some real difficulty, and there were trenchant criticisms of it in that report. The Government responded last February, and the House of Lords responded again to the Government, rebutting their complacency, in April last year. The report referred to the narrow scientific base of what CoRWM was doing. It also noted with concern the suspension of one member of CoRWM and the request that another be suspended. It went on to say:
	"We have already stated our concern as to the level of expertise on CoRWM; it would be extremely unfortunate if this expertise were further diluted through the loss of two members with relevant technical experience."
	Have things improved since? No, they have not. In the British Medical Journal, on 10 December, the two suspended members made the point that
	"the committee now has less than a year to formulate its advice"
	and that the
	"latest independent review is sceptical that there will be a successful outcome".
	I want to hear the Minister confirm that he believes that the timetable of July this year can be stuck to, I want him to tell us why there are no replacements for the experts needed on CoRWM, and I want him to say that the credibility of CoRWM remains intact despite its difficulties.
	We are a long way from settling the issue of how to dispose of nuclear waste, let alone of where to dispose of it and how to pay for it. The proponents of a new generation of investment in nuclear now say that that does not really matter, because it is all legacy waste. From now on, they say, there will not be a problem, as the new nuclear industry will be virtually waste-free. Yes, there is an issue with historic waste, they say, but future waste volumes will be so small that we will not even notice them. A few years ago, they used to say that nuclear power would be so cheap that there would be no need to meter it. Now they say that it is so clean that there is no need to clean up after it. Both claims are straight from the fantasy world of pro-nuclear lobbyists.
	A few minutes ago, I mentioned that CoRWM might be afflicted by a credibility problem. I am sure that when the Minister replies he will say that CoRWM is a very credible body, which has carried out careful study and has expert advice in its support as well as high-quality research and sound and sustainable facts and figures. I hope that he will say that, because I want to quote some of the figures that CoRWM has brought into the public domain.
	CoRWM says that the total of high-level waste if a new generation of nuclear plants is built—its working assumption was 10 nuclear plants—will rise from just over 8,000 cu m to 39,000 cu m. That is five times as much as we would have if those 10 new nuclear plants were not built—a five-fold increase. What does the industry say about that? British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. told the Science and Technology Committee that there would be a 10 per cent. rise—not a five-fold rise—in nuclear waste. It used that dodgy statistic to persuade the committee to say to the House that nuclear waste issues should not be a bar to future building. The nuclear industry now says:
	"We're not fiddling the figures. It's just a different way of measuring it."
	The difference, however, is between the right way of measuring it and the wrong way of measuring it.
	No one yet knows how, where or when this country can safely store its nuclear waste. No one can be sure of the cost, although we know that it will be in the multi-billions and will pose problems for centuries, not just decades. We also know that a new generation of nuclear build will massively increase the amount of high-level waste to be disposed of. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) has spelt out the cost, the folly and the risks of new investment in nuclear power. I hope that I have cast some light on the unanswered challenge of dealing with an increasing mound of radioactive waste that nobody knows how to deal with.

Robert Goodwill: I am grateful for that intervention. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats have being listening too much to Greenpeace and its scaremongering. The worst things in the ghost ships were asbestos, which is found in many buildings around this city and can be dealt with competently, and some PCBs in the electrical wiring. No. 3 on the list of toxic products in the ghost ships was fuel oil.
	Casting my mind further back, I recall the Brent Spar. Greenpeace said that that platform was full of nasty products and could not be sunk in the sea, but had to apologise because the platform was basically full of concrete. We must bear it in mind that organisations such as Greenpeace are political organisations and the scares that they peddle in the media translate to people making donations to them. We cannot expect to get a balanced opinion from them. Most people in this country get their opinion on nuclear from watching episodes of "The Simpsons", and we need to make the case for nuclear and not just steamroller it through.
	Safety is my primary concern. In 1999, I visited the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine. It was the only place in Ukraine that we saw a statue of Lenin, which, as it was contaminated, was cheaper to leave than to remove. We know of the devastation caused in that part of Ukraine and southern Belarus following the accident in 1986. When we passed through the checkpoint, we were surprised that it took another 20 minutes to arrive at the station, such is the area of Ukraine that is now condemned for many hundreds of years and where people will not live. We visited the deserted town of Pripyat and went into the control room where the unsanctioned experiments were carried out. At Chernobyl, I was most alarmed by the vehicle graveyard. It consists of mounds covering some 250 acres, which our Ukrainian hosts said contained the vehicles used in the immediate aftermath of the accident. In answer to our question about the vehicles' drivers, we were told that they were heroes of the Soviet Union.
	We must not allow another Chernobyl to take place, but I do not think that such an accident could happen in the west, as we have a different safety culture and our reactors use secondary containment and core catchers. I believe that our licensing system will ensure that reactor designs sanctioned in this country will be nothing like the ones adopted in the Soviet Union. I used to drive a Lada; it was very unreliable, but my experiences with it did not mean that I never wanted a car again.
	Another problem is the way that the nuclear industry is treated in the media. Last year, two workers were sadly killed in a nuclear power station in Japan. The story was all over the newspapers, but the men were killed by a steam leak in the turbine room. That accident could have happened in any type of power station, but it just so happened that a nuclear power station was involved. The media always get very hysterical about nuclear power, and we must cut through that hysteria and look at the facts.
	We also need to deal with the problem of waste. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know the old joke about how many nuclear physicists it takes to change a light bulb? The answer is 100—one to change the bulb, and 99 to decide what to do with the old one for the next 10,000 years.
	In Canada, it was interesting to meet Liz Dowdeswell, who came to that country's nuclear waste commission with impeccable green credentials. She is not exactly Canada's Jonathon Porritt, but she is along those lines. The Canadians have looked at the waste problem in a very logical way. I am pleased that our radiological waste management committee in the UK will produce a draft report in April, as we cannot go ahead with new nuclear build until we have an adequate answer to the waste problem. Initially, much of the waste will have to be stored at power stations. After that, we will have to find long-term depositories, but the waste will have to remain accessible as we may need to use it again in the future.
	I welcome the energy review commissioned by the Government. I reject the Liberal Democrat motion, which shuts too many doors without looking at the possibilities. I really believe that nuclear power will have a part to play in the future, and I hope that the Government come to that decision.

Joan Walley: Never mind about that—my plea to Ministers is to ensure that sufficient time is made available in this Parliament for a properly informed debate on all aspects of energy generation and supply and demand in the energy market.
	The House needs no reminding about the scale of the challenge. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to make climate change one of the top priorities for our G8 and EU presidencies. We can also be proud of the way that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has led the debate, both nationally and internationally, but time is running out. Wake-up calls have come from people like James Lovelock and Lester Brown, as well as from David King, the Government's scientific adviser, to the effect that the real threat from climate change is greater than the threat from terrorism. We must make sure that this House is involved in the entire debate about the energy review.
	Earlier, the question was raised as to whether an energy review is really necessary, but I do not see how things now are all that much different from the position in 2003. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) to the extent that things do change, but I maintain that we must set out our route and our objectives so that we can ensure that we remain on target and that we do not go off in another direction.
	My fear is that the question of nuclear power may be a Trojan horse. We must not be pulled off course, and that means that a level playing for the review is absolutely essential. We must also ensure that the other Government reviews that are under way, including the Stern review from the Treasury, the climate change review and the review of renewables, are part and parcel of the consultation that will be formally announced on 23 January.
	We should put on the record the importance of cutting UK carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 by 60 per cent., with progress made by 2020; of the need to maintain the reliability of energy supplies; of promoting competition and competitive markets in the UK and beyond; and of ensuring that everyone's home is adequately and affordably heated. Those are the key components of our energy strategy and those objectives are as valid today as they were in 2003.
	Given that we are now about to embark on a further review, I want my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to some of my concerns. Will he give the House an undertaking that the review will be open and transparent? I have fears about the advisers who will give evidence and provide briefings and written reports. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider whether all the information that he gets could be made available to the House through the Library. We also need to know whether we will have a register of interests for those submitting evidence to the review. It is important to know where they are coming from and whether they have any other motive for the advice that they give to the Government.
	Ministers should also consider ways of making regular statements to both Houses of Parliament and ensuring that Members can access all the information, so that we are equipped to invite the general public to take part in the debate. In that way, we can see what can be done at a local level to meet all the objectives that the Government have already set.
	We also need a full appraisal of all the costs associated with the energy review. That appraisal must not be flawed. In 1998, for example, the non-fossil fuel levy provided billions of pounds to the nuclear industry, and it was clear that that subsidy helped to support technologies and keep costs low. Therefore, we need a similar calculation of how similar investment in renewables could affect future costs. The same certainty is needed when it comes to the time scales for planning and development. It is interesting that there has so far been no rush to build new nuclear plants. We need to ask where the up-front capital to do so will come from, when revenue streams from a new generation of nuclear power will be many years down the line. Once there are new nuclear power stations, the investors will need long-term guarantees of take-up, but that is likely to mean major problems for the structure of the energy market. Whatever is said about a mix of nuclear and renewables, if the Government choose to pick winners in that way, it could shut off developments in microchip and renewables. Major investment in nuclear power would not necessarily be compatible with renewables. We have to have a level playing field so that we do not rule out all the other options.
	I do not have time tonight to address the issues of waste or risk assessment, or the huge opportunities that the Government had in 2003 to ensure that every Department, from the Treasury to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, did more, in a joined-up way, on energy efficiency, changing building design standards and other issues. So much depends on how the Government undertake the energy review and how they address energy efficiency. Parliament needs to know how we are to be involved. Does the Minister recognise the expertise of Select Committees? Is there a framework whereby Select Committees, perhaps through the Liaison Committee, could have input?
	What matters is that we have a full investigation of all the options. There will be no thanks if we get the energy review right, but we shall never be forgiven if we get it wrong. At this eleventh hour, I urge the Minister to ensure that there is a genuine commitment to full disclosure, full public input—

Vincent Cable: My name has been called in aid a couple of times this evening, notably by the Conservative spokesman, who rather mischievously tried to generate a split that does not exist. I entirely agree with what my party's spokesman said in his introductory remarks. He made an extremely forceful statement of what he and I believe. It is our common position.
	The question we need to address is not why we need a review—because, of course, evidence constantly needs to be reviewed—but why we need a comprehensive review of a review. The Minister for Energy attempted to address that question and advanced a couple of arguments—declining production in the North sea and increased imports of gas—as to why circumstances had changed since 2003 when the excellent report appeared. I am sure that he is aware that both those trends were discussed at considerable length in the 2003 report, so I remain puzzled about why it is regarded as an unsatisfactory basis for discussion and debate.
	The report's introduction was by the Prime Minister, who made it clear that the review was not just for three years but until 2050. It mobilised all the resources of the Government, from the dispassionate position of the Cabinet Office. It was in no sense an anti-nuclear document; it argued for keeping the nuclear option open and investing in international collaborative research. It was extremely open-minded. I have been re-reading it to try to understand why the Government are so uncomfortable with it and why they want to take a fresh look at the situation.
	Two passages of the report are particularly devastating. In an overall attempt to make a balanced assessment of nuclear power, it refers to the main focus of public concern about nuclear power and what it describes as the
	"unsolved problem of long-term nuclear waste disposal",
	which, as my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), clearly and forcefully set out, is still unsolved. The report is reasonably open-minded about the underlying economics. It states:
	"Nuclear power seems likely to remain more expensive than fossil fuel generation."
	It does not say that it definitely will be more expensive, and concludes:
	"Because nuclear is a mature technology, within a well-established global industry, there is no current case for further Government support."
	If a private company is willing, considering the current economics of the world energy market, to put its shareholders' funds into initiating a project, which of course meets the regulatory, safety and waste disposal requirements and the decommissioning costs, I do not think that anybody on the Liberal Democrat Benches would quarrel with that judgment, although there may be somebody who has a fundamentalist objection. However, the 2003 energy review argued that there was no justification, in any circumstances, for the Government to use public money or public guarantees to underwrite such a business decision.
	There is, of course, an argument for protecting new industries in certain circumstances. That is why we have the renewable energies obligation; new technologies need a breathing space and the cross-subsidy that they receive. Nuclear power is in a quite different category and does not justify Government support. That is the point made by the 2003 review and it is that conclusion that the Government now find so uncomfortable.
	To understand whether there is any intellectual basis for that view, rather than merely political pressure, I turn to the two points made by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), who was genuinely trying to address the problem. He says that two things have changed. First, we have had a price shock in both gas and oil. Does that change the picture? Secondly, there are new issues that relate to the security of supply. Let us address each of them briefly.
	There has been a price shock, which was not anticipated or described in detail. What is the logic of that? What will happen? Anyone who spent years in the energy industry, as I did, trying to anticipate the prices of oil and gas, knows that they cannot be predicted. An awful lot of people have lost a lot of money–perhaps the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is one of them—trying to predict those prices by extrapolation and been terribly wrong.
	The logic of the position is that if we are indeed heading for a period of much higher oil and gas prices—we may be for all I know, but I think it unlikely—those entrepreneurs who want to invest in nuclear power now have an added reason for investing their shareholders' funds in that way and in taking the risks involved. However, it is more likely that higher prices will encourage more investment in exploration, which is happening already in the North sea, and the pressure on conservation will increase—a trend that is taking place already. The prices will therefore subside in a few years. I do not know that they will subside, but it is seems logical that they could do so. If that were to happen, it would be doubly expensive for the Government to commit themselves now to guarantees and subsidies. Either way, the experience of having had a brief oil shock in no way changes the logic of the 2003 review.
	The other point made by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West related to the security of supply. Of course, we must be prudent. There are genuine political issues to address—they are not just ones of nasty economics and costs. He made the point that Russia and Ukraine have had a dispute about the pipeline through Ukraine. Despite the fact that the Soviet Union never disrupted supplies, those two countries have been arguing about price and behaving in a threatening and rather self-defeating way. Although there was possibly only one day on which supplies were disrupted before those countries came to their senses, that was a worrying episode none the less, and people would be foolish to disregard it.
	The conclusion that we must reach—it is the one that the report drew—is that we must have diversity of natural gas supplies, so that we are not exposed to disruption. If my memory serves me correctly, there are two major pipeline systems through eastern Europe and two major pipeline systems through the Mediterranean. In a couple of years or so, when the Isle of Grain project is completed, the diversity of supply will increase substantially with liquefied natural gas. Britain will then have a built-in diversity of supply, as the energy review acknowledged three years ago.

Jamie Reed: Let the record show that the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), while talking about my constituency both misleadingly and with impunity, refused to take interventions. That both reflects shamefully on them and embarrasses the Liberal Democrat party.
	The parameters of any debate about nuclear power must acknowledge the environmental benefits and the benefits of supply security that nuclear power brings. The debate must not be sidetracked down the outdated and discredited road of developing ways simply to stop nuclear power at all costs. Such a position is no longer credible, and in my view, it never has been.
	Given the pressing issues of security of supply, global warming and sustained economic growth, we must press ahead with both a political and a national energy consensus. Such a consensus is readily and quickly achievable and must contain significant renewable generation, coal and gas generation and, inescapably, continued future nuclear generation of at least 22 per cent., which nuclear power currently provides.
	I for one did not enter politics to take easy decisions. More often than not, the right decisions require leadership, nerve and vision. It would be easy to denounce the British nuclear industry. It would be easy to listen only to the wilfully misinformed anti-nuclear careerists who have made significant financial sums from telling lies and half-truths about the industry for the best part of three decades. It would be easy to swallow the nonsense that is talked about the industry, but producing energy policy on the basis of wilful ignorance and shameless populism would be tantamount to perpetrating a fraud on the British people.
	The myth that this country—or the world, for that matter—can do without nuclear energy has been peddled for too long. In part, I understand the reasons for that: it is hard to drop a prejudice, no matter how illogical it is. However, scientific fact and political opinion, no matter how keenly that is felt, are separate entities. The fact of the matter is that the political environment that gave rise to the anti-nuclear school of thought has changed as more detailed scientific evidence about the pace and scale of climate change has emerged.
	The greenhouse effect is now widely accepted as scientific fact. No serious politician who acknowledges it can afford to disregard the contribution of nuclear generation as part of the urgent measures that are required to combat climate change. To do so would be self-indulgent, if not delusional.
	I believe the Government's chief scientist when he says that global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism. I believe James Lovelock when he says that climate change is the greatest danger that human civilisation has faced so far. I also agreed with him when he wrote last year:
	"Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources."
	He continued:
	"I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy."
	I echo those sentiments—it is never too late to change a habit, no matter how bad it is.
	Probably the most disingenuous argument used against civil nuclear power is that of problems relating to the disposal of radioactive waste. There are no technical or scientific barriers to the safe disposal of radioactive waste, only political ones. We know precisely what to do with the waste. There are a finite number of sensible options, and I hope that the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management will make recommendations on the way forward soon.
	Energy policy is perhaps the most important political issue facing Britain as a nation today. As such, we urgently need to establish a national consensus that is based on the national interest. As Senator John Kerry said during his bid for the presidency of the United States, American dependency on outside energy sources presented
	"a growing threat to national security."
	The same can be said of Britain today.

Jamie Reed: I accept that, but although we have talked a lot about indigenous materials, we have not talked about reprocessing. If we wished to reprocess, we would have sufficient resources for our nuclear power stations for decades.
	Senator Kerry also called for a "declaration of energy independence" for the United States. Hon. Members should now call for a declaration of energy security for Britain. The current review of energy policy, which I assume the debate is designed to influence, must address not only our energy needs, but, crucially, our environmental, economic, national security and foreign policy needs.
	We desperately need to control our energy production and the supply of the resources that we require to produce that energy. The ways in which to do that are well understood. We need significantly increased generation across the board from renewable resources—the massive Government investment in that sector has been far-sighted, bold and necessary. We need to develop clean ways of utilising our own carbon resources, such as coal, gas and oil. We need to ramp up research and development into energy-saving techniques and technologies for energy used in industry and transport and domestically. Fundamentally, we need to acknowledge that nuclear generation forms an integral part of the policy solutions that we all require.
	Unless we can control our energy production, we cannot control our economy. If we cannot control our economy, we cannot govern, plan, make necessary investments in public services, ensure that we have a stable economy for private investment, or guarantee the security of our nation and society. Recent events in Ukraine have illustrated precisely that, and it is worth noting for a second exactly what kind of policy effect the episode has had throughout the rest of Europe.
	On Tuesday last week, the Moscow Times—I am sure that hon. Members know that that is widely read in Copeland—reported that many European countries are now
	"considering going back to nuclear power as they review their energy policies after Gazprom's politically tinged price war with Ukraine".
	Both the German Economics Minister and the Italian Industry Minister told the publication that their countries would now review their nuclear generation policies. The Italian Minister was quoted as saying that nuclear energy was required to safeguard Italy from "energy emergencies". In addition, the EU Energy Commissioner has said:
	"It is clear that Europe needs a clearer and more collective and cohesive policy on security of energy supply",
	and that he will present a new EU energy policy in the spring.
	It is essential that any new EU policy accommodates future nuclear generation in Britain. I trust that the Government will ensure that that is the case, although I am certain that the nuclear case will be made and, I hope, won by our French cousins. It is inconceivable that nuclear generation will not be part of that policy. The fact is that in Britain and elsewhere, security of energy supply is possible only with a significant element of nuclear generation.
	Britain is in a position to manufacture nuclear fuel, enable nuclear generation and recycle the fuel used in electricity production for either reuse or sale. The British nuclear industry—particularly in my constituency—provides this country with a technological and industrial expertise that is the envy of many of our European partners. If we are serious, as I believe we all are, about having an effective and diverse energy policy, we must build on that expertise as part of the energy review and take the necessary steps to facilitate a new generation of nuclear power stations in this country.

Tobias Ellwood: Although I agree that we should be debating nuclear power today, I do not agree with the Liberal Democrats' conclusions on the subject. I agree with the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) that it is most important that we debate nuclear energy and our energy needs now, given the events in Ukraine and Russia.
	I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill). His point about Homer Simpson was made in jest, but we should think about the education that we receive on the subject of nuclear energy and ask ourselves where we have learned our facts and figures, whether in the House or prior to our coming here. The education that Britain has received in that difficult subject is tenuous, to say the least. Much of our knowledge is drawn from events such as Chernobyl and—dare I say it—from watching cartoons on television such as "The Simpsons", in which we see Homer Simpson walking home with a glowing bar in his back pocket. Those images stay with us, and even though people do not believe that that happens, if such impressions are not corrected it is difficult to know what to believe.
	In this debate, differing views have been expressed and statistics have been quoted back and forth across the Chamber, but who is right? The debate that we have to have on energy, including the nuclear question, is fundamental, but it must be conducted in an adult, honest and intelligent manner. I praise the Canadians for their approach: they spent two years having an honest debate before deciding on the future direction of their energy policy.

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. What happened at Chernobyl? Late one evening, technicians who worked there were playing around with the system. They had switched off safety devices and there was no secondary back-up system. That does not happen any more. The back-up systems that we have in place ensure that Chernobyl can never happen again. Unfortunately, the problems that occurred there remain with us and people believe that they could be repeated. Comment was made comparing Chernobyl with a Lada, but Ladas have changed as well, as have ships. We still build large ships. We did not stop building them when the Titanic went down; we made improvements to them.
	The importance of the debate is fundamental, for two reasons: first, it is accepted that we are damaging our planet; and, secondly, we are running out of fuel. The damage that we are doing to our planet is recognised in all parts of the House and by all generations in the House. CO 2 emissions affect our climate. Previous generations created the problem through ignorance, but we compound it through arrogance by doing so little about it.
	Kyoto has achieved much. It is a major step in improving the climate, with 180 countries signing up, but not the United States. I encourage the United States to be included in the next round of talks on climate change. The results of Kyoto have been helpful. If we are successful, 483 million tonnes of emissions will be cut by 2012. However, China, India and the USA combined create 2.7 billion tonnes of CO 2 emissions every year. That puts into perspective the amount of work that remains to be done.
	Let us consider our domestic requirements. We require 350 TWh of power to keep Britain going, and that requirement will increase by about 500 TWh. One third of that power is produced from coal and more than a third from gas. In my intervention on the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), I commented on waste. If we are to have an adult debate about our energy needs, let us put into context where the waste is coming from and what we are doing with it. Much of the waste that we create comes from hospitals. High-level waste also comes from military uses, but that is a separate topic from the debate about civil nuclear energy.
	Security of supply has been discussed. We have concerns about the fact that we now import coal and also gas. We are also concerned that the 14 remaining nuclear power stations are about to be switched off. That means that we require 40 per cent. generating capacity that is not even built yet. Many hon. Members have spoken of our gas requirements, which will rise from the current 40 per cent. to 80 per cent. as we become a net importer.
	We had a fruitful debate last week on the problems of gas imports from Ukraine and Russia. It is worth mentioning that Russia and Iran are likely to create a gas cartel. Last time a cartel was formed, in the case of OPEC, there was a sudden rise in the cost of oil. There is a real question about security of supply. The European Union's failure to create a common gas market is causing concern. Had the EU created such a market, we would not be experiencing the problems that we face today.
	Nuclear energy now provides 22 per cent. of our electricity supply, but all nuclear power stations will be closed by 2023. Some of the arguments advanced by the Liberal Democrats are based on the technology that has been used and the success that Britain has had in building nuclear plants—I think the Minister said that the UK's construction of power stations was not our finest hour. We are one of the few nations to use gas-cooled reactors—everyone else uses water-cooled reactors. Unfortunately, much of the UK's nuclear industry has moved to Canada and other parts of the world. There were delays in the licensing and approval for nuclear power plants; there were no incentives to get those jobs completed; and the plants were often redesigned as they were constructed. For example, it took 20 years to get a spark out of Dungeness, and it took six years to obtain planning permission for Sizewell B, the last reactor to be built.
	We have heard nothing from the Liberal Democrats about new technology. Canada has the third-generation CANDU system, which, unlike UK reactors, allows nuclear power plants to continue running while the rods are changed. South Africa is considering the new pebble-bed reactor system, which is much safer than existing systems and uses helium instead of water. Those systems cost about £1 billion each, which sounds like an awful lot of money, but it is the same price as an oil rig or about double the cost of a gas-cooled plant.
	We have not explored fusion and fission. I reckon that we will move into that area in about 60 years, so we need to do some work.
	As I have said, I want to see the Minister produce not only a review, but the answers. What is the next step forward? Although I have not made up my mind, I have tried to correct others and have done my best to learn about the subject. I fear that many hon. Members have more passion than knowledge about the issues, which is dangerous.

Alan Whitehead: We are conducting an ambitious review, which will report shortly. The issue concerns not only a secure supply for the future, but a diverse supply which is not intermittent and which contributes to a 60 per cent. cut in CO 2 emissions by 2050—if we do not reach that target by 2050, climate change will mean that we do not have another chance to do so. The review is taking place against an uncertain series of parameters, but a reasonable conclusion is that we should source as much of our energy as possible for future use from within the UK.
	We need a mature and careful analysis of all sources of energy. Tonight, we are discussing nuclear power, so it is reasonable to ask how nuclear power might work as part of the mix—it cannot form the sole power source. I want to raise two issues—timing and cost. Nuclear power is not a short-term fix, because all but one of our nuclear power stations will be closed down by 2023, so if we are to maintain our present level of nuclear power generation, we must therefore replace all those nuclear power stations. In that case, we would have to invest £10 billion to £15 billion over a 10-year period in capital payments for nuclear power stations before a single kilowatt of nuclear energy were produced.
	Tonight's argument has addressed whether direct or indirect subsidy would be required to undertake such a programme. If no subsidies were provided, recent practice suggests that no one would build a nuclear power station, which would take us 10 years down the line with no new nuclear power stations and a greater gap in our energy supply, so the likelihood is that some money will be needed either directly or indirectly. If that money were to be used, the question that we might well ask is what we could get for that amount of money if we did not put it into nuclear. In relation to the outputs that we could get on renewable energy, for example, the figures equate very well.
	The other issue relates to security of supply and getting to a low-carbon economy. In terms of the mix that we could have, we stand in a very positive position compared with most industrialised countries. We have huge reserves of coal that we fail to exploit. We will be a net oil and gas importer, but we will still produce some oil and gas. We have Europe's largest supply of wind, tidal and wave energy. We are almost uniquely blessed in the raw materials for renewable technologies. The nuclear argument states that despite all that we must have nuclear as part of the mix.
	Nuclear is not CO 2 -neutral. Figures have been produced about what the nuclear footprint is in terms of carbon and the whole-life concerns of nuclear generation. It is relatively low-carbon-emitting compared with oil or gas, but only when its fuel is mined from relatively rich sources. As soon as those sources start depleting in richness, the carbon emissions from the mining rise. Under those circumstances, at half the level of the ores that are currently going into British nuclear energy, the overall carbon emissions rise to roughly those of gas.
	It is estimated that at present a 50-year supply of uranium is left. In terms of the uranium used in world nuclear energy, we have a gap, even at present levels, of about 30,000 tonnes across the world. We would have to make that up in future years by mining still more. It is not an indigenous energy supply—it has to be mined from across the world, and it will run out in the not too distant future. We will perhaps commit ourselves to part of our energy supply based on exactly the same arguments about exhaustion of supply that we have faced over the past 50 years. That is not a fundamentally good idea.
	I hope that the energy review will consider those aspects of nuclear power as it considers all the possible sources and the mix that is required.

Norman Lamb: This has been an important debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) pointed out, it would not have taken place had we not provided the opportunity. I welcome it for that reason.
	The arguments in favour of nuclear power have been based on two things: security of supply and global warming. The slightly over-the-top contribution by the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) generated looks of despair among some of his hon. Friends. We can all agree about the absolute imperative of tackling climate change, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and others pointed out, we can achieve that without nuclear power. It is not just Liberal Democrats saying that. The Tyndall Centre, in its report, "Decarbonising the UK", said that we can achieve a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon by 2050. That view is shared by the royal commission on environmental pollution in a report that was accepted by the Government. The Carbon Trust believes that we can achieve it, and the Government's own White Paper, which was published just three years ago, also claimed that. So there is no case for arguing that there is no alternative.
	We have heard the inevitable attacks on the Liberal Democrats from Labour and Conservative Members, but they seem studiously to ignore the fact that many on their own sides share our analysis. We have had the wonderful spectacle of the Conservatives appointing Zac Goldsmith as an adviser in a desperate attempt to get some credibility with the environmentalists, yet their own spokesman effectively condemned Zac's analysis as "fundamentally irresponsible." I look forward to the debates in the Conservative party. Nuclear power is "a horror story", according to Mr. Goldsmith.
	As for the Labour Members who attack us, they are attacking their own Government's White Paper. Our position is remarkably similar to the heading on page 61, which says:
	"We do not propose new nuclear power."
	We do not have closed minds; we simply accept the Government's analysis of only three years ago. Many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) all made the point that nothing has fundamentally changed since that White Paper was published. We were already aware of global warming and that we would become net importers of gas and oil. Either the Government's analysis in the White Paper was flawed or the conclusions hold good today. We take the latter view.
	Since the review, the Government have abjectly failed to do anything effective to cut energy waste. Departments are some of the worst offenders and the Treasury is the worst of all. The Government have also failed to develop a broad mix of renewable sources of energy. They will fail miserably to achieve their target of reducing 20 per cent. of CO 2 emissions by 2010.
	The debate has examined some of the key anxieties about nuclear power. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) and many others highlighted the unresolved problem of waste. If anything should give people pause for thought, it is the lamentable record of the industry and successive Governments on dealing with waste. I applaud the Minister for Energy for his honesty in admitting "a national disgrace". That record represents scandalous neglect of a potentially devastating environmental hazard, which remains today. The legacy ponds in particular are an enormous environmental hazard.
	Those legacy ponds also pose an enormous security threat. In the age of the suicide bomber, should we discount that fear?

Barry Gardiner: The distinction is quite simple. The Government are open to listening to the arguments; the right hon. and learned Gentleman has cut it off and said that he will not listen to the arguments put forward in the energy review.
	There is, however, one honourable exception on the Liberal Democrat Benches: the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) has apparently refused to sign up to the gagging order. In recent interviews in the Sunday Herald, The Scotsman and just about every other Scottish journal, he has dismissed the emotional arguments of his colleagues, saying that the new nuclear reactors could be "the least worst option" for maintaining security of supply and reducing carbon emissions. He has also very sensibly insisted:
	"If, as may be the case, the answer were to be nuclear, in those circumstances it would not give me a problem. It would be responsible to consider nuclear as one of the options".
	The hon. Gentleman is, of course, his party's Scotland spokesperson, and with his fine Scots quality of plain speaking, he has counselled, "We need honest information". As Nicol Stephen might say: "Oh no, John; no, John, no!"
	I, too, am a believer in honest information, and as we approach the difficult issues that surround energy policy, it is important that we start with a clear and honest appraisal of our position. If we reflect on the energy situation today, it is clear that our market-based energy policy has delivered significant benefits to the United Kingdom. The UK is on track to meet the Kyoto target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Although we are experiencing some price hikes in the gas market this winter, UK energy markets remain among the most competitive in the EU, on both industrial and domestic electricity and gas prices. The number of households in fuel poverty in the UK has fallen by more than 4.5 million since 1996, and more than 1 million vulnerable households have been assisted by the Warm Front scheme. The renewables obligation and the climate change levy exemption will result in support to renewables of £1 billion a year by 2010. As a result of the renewables obligation, last year saw the largest amount of renewable generation ever installed in the UK.
	We have seen many changes to the energy landscape since the 2003 energy White Paper. Evidence on the adverse impact of climate change has continued to grow, and world prices for fossil fuels have increased by more than 50 per cent. over the past three years. Projected prices are now much higher than many people predicted at the time of the 2003 White Paper. North sea gas production has declined more rapidly than many predicted, so the UK has become a net importer of gas sooner than anticipated. We need to consider the risks of relying on imported gas when there is increasing sensitivity in relation to global energy issues.
	The goals set out in the 2003 energy White Paper continue to provide the right framework for our energy policy, but as was stated and envisaged in that White Paper, we are keeping our detailed policy under review and are prepared to amend it in light of experience.
	The energy review will examine some extremely complex issues. It will not produce simple yes or no answers, as the Liberal Democrats have. There will be no single solution and no single silver bullet, which is why the review will look right across the energy landscape. On renewables, for example, at present, predominantly wind turbines will play a key role going forward as the renewables obligation delivers increasing new generation capacity. But renewables cannot provide the whole answer, either on generation capacity issues or on our carbon goals.
	Other renewables may emerge over time as significant players, such as microgeneration, wave and tidal, but currently only wind can provide meaningful low-carbon capacity at a cost comparable to that of existing non-renewable technologies such as gas, coal and nuclear.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) argued passionately and with great knowledge, estimating that the UK can raise its renewables capacity to European levels, as the Liberal Democrats also propose. I trust, however, that he agrees that it will be difficult to do so if Liberal Members, and Liberal parties up and down the country, continue to oppose wind farms, as they have in North Devon at Fullabrook down; in Ross, Skye and Easter Ross on the Isle of Skye; in Porthcawl at Scarweather sands; in Penrith in Cumbria at Whinash wind farm; and, as their politicians did, at Totnes in south Devon, as well as at Durham and Denshaw in Lancashire.
	We are also considering other means to cut our carbon emissions, such as carbon capture and storage. Our carbon abatement strategy includes £25 million of capital grants that, among other options, could be used to support a demonstration of capture-ready technology, not least through clean coal technology. That has been increased to £35 million as a result of the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement of 5 December.
	While this is not a nuclear review, it would be wrong for the Government to dismiss that subject out of hand, without first considering the evidence. Nuclear might provide some answers going forward, but there are major factors to be considered first, such as, what would be the implications for our carbon reduction targets of nuclear's share of the energy mix falling? What do the economics of nuclear look like, given the sharp rise in oil and gas prices? Of course, we will also need to consider the issue of waste management. That has been mentioned this evening.
	I should stress, however, that the cost of our historic nuclear legacy is not solely a function of nuclear power generation; far from it. It represents the lifetime costs—about £56 billion, which the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has estimated is necessary to clean up all its sites. That legacy is in part made up of experimental facilities created 50 to 60 years ago and without any consideration being given to future decommissioning and clear-up. It is important to note that some 80 per cent. of the costs relate to pioneering and experimental sites, including Sellafield and Dounreay. Those costs were never predicated on generating capacity. The costs of decommissioning modern nuclear reactors would be built in from day one, which was not the case with the facilities of earlier generations.
	In conclusion, I want to make it clear that the dividing line in this debate between those on the Liberal Democrat Benches and those on the Government side is not that they are against nuclear and we are for it. It is that we go into an open and transparent public energy review with an open mind, willing to listen to all the arguments. The Liberal Democrats, in contrast, do not want to engage in that debate because their mind is closed.
	However, the Liberal Democrats, having made up their mind and sated in their manifesto that they will replace nuclear power with renewables and energy conservation measures, must explain what—

David Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I hate to interfere with his rhetoric and his poetry. Does he agree that abolition of school milk was an early act of Mrs. Thatcher's that we reversed and that it is a pity that we have no plans to reverse one of her later acts—the decoupling of pensions from pay and the economy? In Chorley, North-West Leicestershire and throughout the country, children in 15,000 schools receive significant nutritional value from milk at a very low cost indeed, so will my hon. Friend congratulate a little more warmly the ministerial duo, Lord Bach and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, our hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), for what they have done in that regard? It is a huge step forward for nutrition and sends all the right signals for our public health agenda.

Peter Bone: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what is a very important debate. Am I to understand that the EU would give us some money to subsidise milk in our schools and we are not taking it? For goodness' sake, let us get something back from the EU.

Lindsay Hoyle: The good news is that we are taking money back, but we could take more money from the EU by extending the scheme up to the age of 11. Surely, we ought to be selling that on the benefits that milk brings. There is no doubt that children benefit from the calcium, other minerals and riboflavin—we can include iodine—that comes from milk. The debate thankfully gives us the opportunity to recognise the importance of expanding the scheme and taking some of the money back from the EU.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am not quite sure who has all the chocolate oranges at Smith's any more, but that is another matter. The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the future of farming. We have a great chance to help farmers in the UK by ensuring that there is a market that we can expand as more children benefit from the nutritional value of milk.
	I look around the Chamber and see my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland (Dr. Kumar), for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton), for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby), as well as Opposition Members, who are taking a keen interest in the importance of not only farming, but the future of free milk in schools. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are supporting the benefits of free school milk and the benefits of that for British farming. Free school milk will play a key role in the future. There is no doubt that farmers in my constituency and dairy farmers throughout Lancashire welcome the opportunity to supply schools, and that must continue.
	The Minister is sympathetic towards farming. I know that he takes on board such concerns because he has said in Westminster Hall that he is taking up the challenge of trying to ensure that there is a future for farming in this country, as we must do. I know that he will be listening tonight and taking on board what is said. He will say to people in the Department for Education and Skills, "Let us help young people in schools and also British farming." We have the backing of the National Farmers Union, farmers and schools—everyone who matters and is concerned. That was why parents could not believe that a statement came out at Christmas—of all times—saying that school milk was being taken away. That is the problem when bureaucrats get in charge of the media, but thankfully this is now about politicians putting things right and doing right by the children and farmers of this country.
	There is no doubt that we all get benefit from milk. I still get milk delivered at home. Entwistle has delivered to our family for years and long may that continue. There was a danger that if we eroded a market such as that for schools, we would affect the local farmers who deliver to the doorstep in any weather, be that rain or snow. When the supermarket is not there, I know that our local farmer is there to deliver to our doorstep. We have that advantage, and the situation is exactly the same in all our constituencies. There is no doubt that the issue is emotive.
	I was pleased that about 50 hon. Members signed the early-day motion in support of free school milk. That showed what we could do. It showed that politicians can get things right by working together, and that people listen.

Jim Knight: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on having secured this debate on the important subject of school milk. Given his record, it comes as no surprise that the issue has attracted his attention. He is adept at keeping his finger on the pulse of developments in the milk sector. Tonight, he is adding to his already formidable reputation for having a profound knowledge of the dairy industry and for being a consistent and vigorous advocate for it through parliamentary questions and his participation in the Adjournment debate on milk prices in November last year.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject tonight, because it gives me the opportunity to talk about the importance of school milk and what the Government are doing to support it. There has been much discussion of the publication of the recent economic evaluation of the school milk top-up subsidy. I am glad to have an opportunity to clarify that matter, because some of my hon. Friend's interpretation of events needs a little clarification.
	The subsidy scheme is long-established and valued by many, including many in all parts of the House, particularly by those campaigning for good childhood nutrition, and by the dairy industry, which sees the scheme as helping to encourage children to develop a lasting taste for milk.
	The Government are proud of their track record in improving children's eating. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley mentioned, we are aware that poor diet can create a barrier to learning, affecting the ability to concentrate as well as contributing to health problems in both the short and the longer term. That is a matter of concern to all of us, although we feel that as a Government we have made some headway.
	The food provided in schools is a key component of many pupils' diet. Getting it right is vital. That is why, in March last year, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced a package of measures to help schools and local authorities transform school meals. A key measure was the establishment of the school meals review panel, whose recommendations for nutritional standards for school food seek to promote water, fruit juices and milk as the preferred drinks in schools. It is recognised that milk is a valuable component of a balanced diet and a healthier alternative to soft drinks. I should make it clear that when I talk about milk as part of a balanced diet, I mean skimmed or semi-skimmed milk.
	The Department of Health is also playing its part in promoting a more balanced diet. For example, the school fruit and vegetable scheme provides a free piece of fruit or vegetable each school day to all children aged four to six attending local education authority-maintained infant, primary and special schools throughout England. It also operates a welfare food scheme, which, among other things, reimburses certain day care facilities for providing a third of a pint of milk free of charge to children under five attending for at least two hours a day. As part of the current welfare food scheme reforms, changes to the provision of milk in day care will be considered. However, we do not expect changes to be made until at least autumn 2006.
	Against that background of developing support for improving the diet of children in school, supporters of school milk have queried why the report was commissioned. I hope to explain this. The EU funds a scheme which must be made available across all member states and which subsidises the provision of milk to primary and nursery schools. Participation in the scheme is entirely a matter for schools or local education authorities. Parents generally pay the difference between the actual cost and the subsidy. The UK applies only the mandatory elements of the EU scheme, whereby the subsidy is payable on plain and flavoured whole and semi-skimmed milk and plain whole and semi-skimmed milk yoghurt. In practice, most milk is supplied as whole milk in one third of a pint servings. It is estimated that some 1.2 million children in England receive subsidised milk.
	The EU subsidy on school milk was reduced in 2000. Since 1 January 2001, the UK Government have provided national aid to supplement the EU subsidy. The Government provide an annual maximum of £1.5 million in England, funded jointly by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health for this purpose. Annual expenditure has been in the region of £6 million to £7 million—that is, the EU scheme plus the national top-up. The Government provide funding for the supplement and, in practice, bear the cost of some 70 per cent. of the EU element. As has been said, administration of the scheme by the Rural Payments Agency and schools adds to its overall cost. That is an aspect of the report that we shall study closely.
	The EU subsidy scheme and the national supplement are both highly thought of, but the fact that they are highly valued cannot exclude them from the Department's rolling programme of policy reviews. That is why the review was carried out. It is surely right that the Government should examine their programmes from time to time to assess whether they make the best use of public money. The report on the top-up's effectiveness and efficiency was commissioned from independent economists and was published on 4 January. At no point was a decision made by bureaucrats—that was the word used by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley. The only decision that has been made is to carry on with the scheme. Up to that point, all we had was a very useful report from the independent economists. I defend my officials on that point.
	The report found that the total whole milk subsidy per serving in December 2004 was just under 4p, with the top-up constituting 0.75p of that sum. On average, the remaining costs, which are usually met by parents, amounted to between 11p and 12p. The report was critical of the scheme largely on the grounds of its administrative cost and lack of clear rationale in terms of child health. A number of recommendations were made, including ending the top-up and spending the £1.5m on the more targeted promotion of milk.
	Together with colleagues at the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills, we considered the recommendations carefully, but—as has been pointed out—as politicians we decided for the following reasons that they should not be pursued and that the subsidy scheme should remain unchanged. As I have said, what children eat has caused considerable concern, and the subsidy contributes to the Government's wider programme to improve nutrition and tackle health inequalities. The report concentrated on the scheme's value for money and did not cover issues specific to deprivation. However, it concluded that the withdrawal of the top-up could lead to 16 per cent. of school heads giving up participation in the scheme, which could affect more vulnerable children in particular. We think it important to maintain a clear message on the role that school milk plays when we try to promote healthier alternatives to soft drinks in schools and focus on improving nutritional standards. All those factors helped to persuade us that now is the right time to alter a scheme that involves a relatively small amount of public money, but that forms a significant plank in the Government's nutrition programme.
	One of the report's key recommendations was that funding should be expanded for the successful elements of existing programmes to increase teenagers' milk consumption, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley clearly feels strongly about extending the scheme to secondary schools. In 1996, the previous Government ended the subsidy for secondary schools largely due to public expenditure pressures and chose to focus attention on younger children. All Governments face public expenditure pressures, and must make choices, and we believe that there are other ways to develop milk provision in secondary schools.
	The Government have a part to play in promoting milk consumption, but the industry also needs to maximise the opportunities arising from the good work funded by the taxpayer, which is, after all, to its benefit. That is why we applaud the imaginative initiative operated by the industry and the Milk Development Council, which has led to milk bars being set up in secondary schools. There are now some 1,000 milk bars in England and Wales and, by all accounts, they have proved to be very attractive to teenagers, who are not the easiest people to please in my experience and certainly in my home. The Milk Development Council should be praised both for that initiative and for its other schemes that promote the provision of milk in schools, because it has done some tremendously good work in that area.
	I shall resist the temptation to dwell on fluoride in milk, which is an ingenious idea. Fluoride is an issue that has preoccupied previous Health Ministers at the Dispatch Box, but I have listened to enough of those debates in my limited period in Parliament to know that it is easy to get sidetracked on that issue, so I shall stick to the subject of this debate. However, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for their work on not only that issue, but the importance of school milk in their constituencies—the people of Bolton and elsewhere should be proud of their representation in this House.
	The continuing success story on school milk together with the fact that the new school food standards will take into account appropriate levels of nutrient intake—including calcium, which can be lacking in older children—was another reason not to divert money away from the subsidy scheme.
	We also bore in mind the possible negative effects on the dairy industry of any shift away from the scheme in a period of far-reaching change. I noted the comments made by Conservative Members in support of the industry. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are well aware that it is having to absorb the effects of common agricultural policy reform and of moving towards a more free-market system. Given that Members on both sides of the House agree with using a free-market system, I should emphasise that it is inappropriate for the Government to intervene directly on pricing. That does not mean, however, that we are not pursuing the initiatives that we have discussed in previous debates in respect of the Dairy Supply Chain Forum and our ongoing discussions about the milk market with supermarkets and the Office of Fair Trading.
	We are addressing concerns about low farm-gate prices and the increased concentration and buying power of the large multiple retailers. At this time of change for the industry, with those sorts of pressures, we should encourage the next generation of consumers to take advantage of the nutritional benefits of milk and provide stability for the dairy industry at a time when there is so much change elsewhere.
	For those reasons, we have decided not to make any changes to the top-up scheme. We believe that an early announcement would stop further unnecessary speculation on the report's findings. Understandably, given the nature of the media reporting of this independent report, people believe that the decision—
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at one minute past Eleven o'clock.